Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

CLERGY ORPHAN CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SHELL (STANLOW TO PARTINGTON PIPELINE) BILL

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Co-ordination

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he takes to co-ordinate the release to the Press of important statements of Government policy by Ministers.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply

I gave on 3rd February last, on this and other matters, to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister explain why The Times is so inconsiderate in reporting the speeches of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently he delivered a speech which I found in the Scottish edition of The Times which had given it three and a half inches, and that when I came to London I found that the whole speech had been omitted in favour of a news item headed, "Live Shell Found on Beachy Head"?

Dr. Hill: I am not responsible for the editorial decisions of The Times newspaper. It may be that that newspaper thought that readers in Scotland were more in need of the education I conveyed in the speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Small Farms, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in his promised consideration of the problems of small farmers, he will pay special attention to the conditions of small farms in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I shall, of course, pay the greatest possible attention to the position of farmers in Wales in working out my proposals for helping small farmers.

Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I say that I have no doubt that he is aware that Wales is peculiarly a country of farms of this kind?

Mr. Hare: That is entirely correct.

Mr. Willey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may anticipate a statement from the Government on the small farms?

Mr. Hare: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer on that point, but, as he knows, it is our intention that the


new scheme shall be introduced as part of the determinations of the 1959 Annual Review.

Administration, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many senior officers of his Department were born in Wales; what steps he proposes to increase the recruitment of persons for senior grades with particular knowledge of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: I regret that the information sought in the first part of the Question is not readily available; but I can say that my Welsh Secretary and the heads of the major technical services in Wales are all Welsh. As for the second part of the Question, the selection of candidates for established posts in my Department, as in other Government Departments, is in the hands of the Civil Service Commission. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that a close knowledge of Welsh conditions is given due weight when senior officers in my Department are appointed to posts in the Principality.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea how many senior officers operating in England were born in Wales?

Mr. Hare: If the right hon. Gentleman would really like to have the answer to that question, I will certainly send it to him.

Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the Answer given to this Question, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made during the last year in the devolution of the work of his Department in Wales; what progress is contemplated during the next twelve months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: Yes, Sir; there has been substantial devolution. On 31st March, 1957, the Welsh Secretary—who as the House will know is my chief official in Wales—was responsible for the work of some 60 staff. He is now responsible for some 870 staff, and will

shortly assume responsibility for a further 80 staff concerned mainly with milk and pests. The remaining staff in Wales are mainly specialists who are responsible to their senior officers in Wales. They in turn report to our technical advisers in London, but the Welsh Secretary is responsible for their general co-ordination.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most satisfactory answer?

Iceland and The Faroes (Fishing Limits)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect on the British fishing industry if the Icelandic fishing limits are increased to 12 miles; and what steps he is taking to protect the industry against the effects of any such unilateral action.

Mr. John Hare: The effects would be very serious: a heavy loss of catch and economic dislocation of the distant-water fleet. As to the second part of the Question, I cannot add to the Declaration made by Her Majesty's Government on 4th June.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industry is grateful to Her Majesty's Government for the firm action they have taken? Is he also aware that, however much our trawlers can be protected when fishing on their lawful occasions, the dispute must eventually come to the conference table? What progress is being made in the discussions with the allied Governments of N.A.T.O. in an effort to persuade the Icelandic Government to come to a more reasonable decision and to discuss the matter round the conference table?

Mr. Hare: As Her Majesty's Government indicated in the statement made on 4th June, I entirely agree that this should be a matter of negotiation. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I and the other members of Her Majesty's Government are doing all we can to see that negotiations are brought into effect.

Mr. Doughty: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of fish landed in Great Britain is caught in that part of the


ocean which Iceland and the Faroes have given notice that they intend to include in their territorial waters, and which is not now included.

Mr. John Hare: The fish taken from the waters around Iceland and the Faroes accounted last year for over 30 per cent. of the total British catch of white fish from all waters. The best estimates available suggest that something like 40 to 50 per cent. of the British catch around Iceland and the Faroes, or about 13 per cent. of the total British catch from all waters, is taken within the proposed 12-mile limit in these two areas.

Mr. Doughty: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that we in this country have no intention of giving up that proportion of our catch unless there is some agreement with the countries concerned, and certainly not by unilateral action on their part?

Mr. Hare: I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that we made our position very clear on 4th June.

Ordnance Survey Maps (Sales)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he makes to have an adequate selection of Scottish Ordnance Survey maps available for purchase by tourists and others at bookshops in England and Wales, including bookshops of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Mr. John Hare: The stocking of Ordnance Survey maps must be a matter for the booksellers, and no special arrangements are made in England and Wales for holding maps of Scotland, either in the shops of Her Majesty's Stationery Office or others. Copies of Ordnance Survey maps not in stock can be ordered through most booksellers or obtained from the Department's principal agents in London.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that he has the responsibility at least for Stationery Office bookshops? Is he aware that my information is that these Scottish maps are not readily available in sufficient variety in England? In view of the importance of tourism to Scotland, will not he start a sales drive for these maps?

Mr. Hare: The Stationery Office is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend

the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will certainly see that the hon. Member's point is brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Advisory Service (Soil Analyses)

Mr. Whitelaw: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the National Agricultural Advisory Service staff employed on soil analysis is adequate to meet the demand from farmers for this important service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: The N.A.A.S. is reasonably well staffed to provide the soil analyses which it requires in order to advise farmers, but I think it would be difficult for the service to furnish routine soil analyses on request.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases farmers are having to wait a considerable time after their applications are made before their soil is tested? Is not this rather unfortunate, when it is most important and desirable that farmers should use this very valuable service?

Mr. Hare: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I think he will realise that the supply of soil chemists and analysts to do this skilled job is limited, and that for all the essential work the National Agricultural Advisory Service is doing what it is asked to do.

Ice Cream

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there were in each of the years 1957, 1956 and 1955 in respect of the quality of contents of ice cream on sale to the public.

Mr. John Hare: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the most recent estimate of the proportion of ice cream on sale to the public which contains no real cream.

Mr. John Hare: Ice cream manufacturers are not required to make returns of output. I regret, therefore, that information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available.

Mr. de Freitas: In view of the fact that so many foreign countries find it


quite easy to insist that ice cream on sale to the public is not made of vegetable fats, will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the regulations so that the consumers and dairy farmers of this country may be similarly protected and ice cream may, in fact, be made out of milk cream?

Mr. Hare: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but I must point out that during the last seventeen years the public has been buying something which it knows as ice cream, and I do not think that many of them have been under the impression that this in fact contained dairy products—and I think that to change the name arbitrarily would not be very sensible.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the average consumer of ice cream is of a very juvenile age and does not, therefore, make inquiries whether the so-called cream is of vegetable origin or dairy produce? Does not he think it is now time for us to ascertain the exact figures in relation to ice cream?

Mr. Hare: There are two separate parts to that question. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the consumption of ice cream is confined merely to the young; the middle-aged and elderly have a considerable liking for it. I know that he and I, and many other hon. Members, share the same wish to increase the use of dairy produce in ice cream, but the sensible and right way to do this is to push the sale of dairy ice cream, and considerable progress is being made in that direction.

Mr. Doughty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very large quantities of this article—whatever its name may be—are sold and that it is high time, in these days of plenty, that we should not be forced back to the situation where substitutes can be put into what should be the real article?

Potatoes

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the recent further increases in the price of potatoes, what steps he will take to ensure additional supplies.

Mr. John Hare: Special arrangements were made during the difficult period in May and early June to allow potatoes to be imported from Continental countries

after the dates which would normally be acceptable for plant health reasons. But supplies of new potatoes from the home crop and the Channel Islands are now increasing rapidly and prices have already fallen significantly. There should soon be ample supplies in the shops at reasonable prices.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sunderland Chamber of Trade—which is a very well-informed body—tells me that it is felt that unnecessarily large profits are being made somewhere in the chain of distribution? Does not he realise that there is a considerable amount of complaint from all quarters? In view of those complaints, will be institute an inquiry into these allegations in order to find out how well founded they are?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member knows quite well that the chief trouble was a general shortage of potatoes. That has not been helped by the dock strike. It may be that during this difficult period prices have gone up, but now that good supplies are coming in I hope to see prices return to a far more reasonable level.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the price of potatoes went up to 1s. 4d. a lb.—or a penny an ounce—which is an all-time record? My authority for this figure is that well-known character, Cassandra, of the Daily Mirror.

Mr. Hare: I know that there was a great shortage and that the price was high.

Meat Supplies, London

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about meat supplies in the London area arising out of current industrial disputes.

Mr. John Hare: There is a shortage of imported meat as a result of the current industrial disputes, but most butchers have so far been able to obtain enough meat to satisfy consumer requirements, although choice may be restricted and prices higher than usual.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it true that, notwithstanding the partial breakdown of distribution in London, considerable supplies of meat have been coming in from all round, through many channels, and is this


attributable to the fact that distribution of meat is in the hands of private enterprise rather than under central control?

Mr. Hare: I think that probably has a great deal to do with it.

Agricultural Holdings, Cornwall

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings in Cornwall are of less than 20 acres; how many are of between 20 to 40 acres, 40 to 100 acres, 100 to 150 acres, 150 to 200 acres; and how many of 200 acres and over.

Mr. John Hare: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wilson: If, as I expect, the reply will show that there is a very large number of very small farms in Cornwall, will my right hon. Friend bear that fact in mind in defining the lower limit of what is a small farm in connection with any scheme to help the small farmer?

Mr. Hare: I thought that my hon. Friend knew the answer to the question. There are, of course, large numbers of small farms in Cornwall. I cannot give any commitment at this stage on the acreage that I shall contemplate when introducing a scheme.

The following is the reply:
The following are the estimated numbers of holdings, excluding 73 holdings consisting entirely of rough grazings in the County of Cornwall in June, 1957:—


Crops and Grass


Less than 20 acres
…
…
6,564


Between 20 and 40 acres
…
…
2,167


Between 40 and 100 acres
…
…
3,205


Between 100 and 150 acres
…
…
1,068


Between 150 and 200 acres
…
…
472


200 acres and over
…
…
384

Dock Strike (Perishable Foodstuffs)

Mr. Doughty: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantities, and what articles, of perishable foodstuffs have become unfit for human consumption in the Port of London by reason of the unofficial dock strike; and what is the approximate value of such foodstuffs.

Mr. John Hare: I am informed that up to this morning the Medical Officer of Health for the Port and City of London

had declared 14 tons of potatoes and one ton of grapefruit unfit for human consumption. The approximate value is £150.

Mr. Doughty: In view of the alarmist figures which have been published of thousands of tons of foodstuffs having gone bad, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that these figures are given due publicity?

Mr. Hare: I think that the Answer to the Question will considerably help in that direction.

Butter

Mr. Doughty: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total amounts of butter imported from each country in 1957 expressed as percentages of the total amount imported.

Mr. John Hare: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Doughty: Whilst not anticipating the Ministry's figures in any way, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will make quite certain that the proportions of New Zealand butter and of Commonwealth butter are maintained at the proper figures in future?

Mr. Hare: I would prefer that my hon. and learned Friend should first digest the figures, and if he cares to discuss them afterwards with me I shall be only too delighted to do so.

Following is the reply:


UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS OF BUTTER—1957


Country
Tons
Per cent.


Kenya
…
300
0·1


Australia
…
53,373
14·6


New Zealand
…
146,224
40·0


South Africa
…
1,049
0·3


Irish Republic
…
14,474
4·0


Finland
…
20,218
5·5


Sweden
…
14,083
3·9


Denmark
…
86,991
23·8


Netherlands
…
12,686
3·5


Argentine Republic
…
12,335
3·4


Norway
…
350
0·1


France
…
814
0·2


Hungary
…
229
0·1


Austria
…
1,245
0·3


Poland
…
910
0·2


Others
…
34
—


TOTAL
…
365,315
100·0

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Lambs (Nematodirus)

Mr. Whitelaw: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made in research into methods of preventing losses amongst lambs from nematodirus disease.

Mr. John Hare: A large amount of research bearing directly and indirectly on the problem of nematodirus is proceeding all over the world. Fundamental work on the life history and epidemiology of the parasite, which is necessary before any effective system of control can be introduced, is in progress at several agricultural research institutes in this country and work on finding new anthelminthic substance is also being carried on by the pharmaceutical industry. It is as yet too early to assess the effect of all this work in reducing losses from nematodirus.

Mr. Whitelaw: May I, in the first place, apologise to my right hon. Friend for asking him a Question which necessitated his mentioning so many unpronouncable names in reply? May I call his attention to the fact that this nematodirus disease is spreading very fast in the North of England? Would it not be most valuable, therefore, if the highest priority were given to research so that effective methods of prevention may be found before the disease becomes a menace on a national scale?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is an important disease among hill sheep. I shall certainly see that the scale of research being devoted to it is adequate.

Farm Buildings Research Committee

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Lord President of the Council, on how many occasions the Farm Buildings Research Committee has met; and what results the Committee has achieved.

Mr. John Hare: The Farm Buildings Research Committee, set up by the Agricultural Research Council in June, 1957, has met on three occasions. As explained to the hon. Member on 15th April, a special unit has been established by the Agricultural Research Council to carry out surveys on existing farm buildings and

the immediate requirements of farmers. In addition, reports have been called for from experts in such varied subjects as animal physiology, pest infestation and agricultural machinery. In the collection of this information, the council is working in close co-operation with my Department's Agricultural Land Service. It will of necessity be some time before the results of all these inquiries are available to enable the Committee to formulate the research requirements and to recommend the steps that should be taken to implement them.

Mr. Willey: I appreciate that this is effective comprehensive work. Nevertheless, does not the Minister agree that this is both very important and urgently required work? Will he see that the Committee expedites its consideration and issues its recommendations and advice as soon as possible?

Mr. Hare: I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is extremely important work. In my reply, I have tried to show him that a great deal of preliminary work will be necessary before sound recommendations can be put forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Rents (Assistance)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will publish in HANSARD a table of figures showing either the weekly or monthly number of assistance grants made in respect of rents, for each of the months commencing one month before the commencement of the Rent Act. 1957, until the latest convenient stated date; and what was the approximate average weekly or monthly grant in each case.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I assume that the hon. Member is asking for figures for other dates corresponding to those given to him for April, 1957 and 1958, in reply to his Question on 19th May. I will therefore circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the National Assistance Board's estimate of the numbers for each month from June, 1957. As regards the second part of the Question, I can only repeat that it is not possible to say how much of assistance granted is attributable


to rent, as the grant paid, after taking all the needs and resources of the applicant into account, is often less than the rent.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not deplorable that large sums of money are being paid out every week through the National Assistance Board, in effect to subsidise the landlords, and yet the Minister has no account of how much is being paid per week? Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to know. Will he take steps to ascertain how much money per week, per month or per year is being paid out to landlords in rent subsidies?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member is perfectly well aware, that is not an accurate statement of the position. Indeed, much of the rents and rates included in the figures which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT are rents and rates paid to local authorities. As to the figures, the hon. Member will be comforted by the fact that the number of payments which contain a rent element is actually 37,000 less in the most recent figure in the table compared with the earliest figure.

Mr. Lewis: If the number of grants is less, can the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the total amount in cash is less? Is it more? If the right hon. Gentleman knows that fewer grants are being made, can he assure us that the actual amount of cash is smaller?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member has failed to understand how the grants are assessed. On the one hand, the needs of the applicant are calculated, including rent and other matters arising under the scale. On the other hand, resources are set against them and a balance is struck in that way. If the hon. Member understood how this is done, he would realise how quite impracticable is his question.

The following are the figures:


Estimated numbers of householders receiving weekly assistance grants whose grants took account of rent (or similar outgoings) and rates, at the end of each of the following months—


1957


June
…
…
…
1,263,000


July
…
…
…
1,257,000


August
…
…
…
1,259,000


September
…
…
…
1,262,000


October
…
…
…
1,274,000


November
…
…
…
1,287,000


December
…
…
…
1,302,000

1958


January
…
…
…
1,251,000


February
…
…
…
1,242,000


March
…
…
…
1,240,000


April
…
…
…
1,230,000


May
…
…
…
1,226,000

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will state the total financial grant made in National Assistance towards rents by recipients of National Assistance since the introduction of the Rent Act, 1957.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For the reason just explained to the hon. Member in reply to his previous Question, it is not possible to state how much of the expenditure on assistance grants can be attributed to rent in isolation. Where there are resources taken into account, any attempt to apportion the amount of assistance granted between rent and other requirements would be impracticable and meaningless.

Mr. Lewis: If I put a suitable Question on the Order Paper, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible for him to ascertain the figures in respect of old-age pensioners where grants are made for this specific purpose?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member understood the system, he would see that his attempt—I am sure wellmeaning—to ensure simplicity would, in fact, involve further complication.

Commonwealth Citizens and Foreigners (Assistance)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many Pakistanis, other Commonwealth citizens and foreigners, respectively, are receiving National Assistance allowances in Accrington and district.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): The National Assistance Board does not maintain separate records of the kind requested, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service informs me that a special examination of the unemployment register at Accrington shows that 19 Pakistanis are receiving National Assistance through the Accrington Employment Exchange.

Mr. Hynd: Is the hon. Lady aware of the growing concern about the inflow


of people from Pakistan and other parts of the Commonwealth who have no work ready for them in this country? Is any inquiry being made into whether there is some person or group of persons organising the sending of these Commonwealth people into this country? If this flow continues it may smash our National Health and National Assistance schemes.

Miss Pitt: The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a question for my Ministry. Perhaps he would like to put a question to one of my right hon. Friends. I think it should be addressed to the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Oil Imports

Mr. Peyton: asked the Paymaster-General what he estimates will be the oil imports into the United Kingdom in the years 1960, 1965 and 1970.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): It is impossible to make reliable forecasts for so many years ahead but, as my hon. Friend will know, net imports of petroleum into the United Kingdom have roughly doubled in the last decade and it is reasonable to expect further expansion in the future.

Mr. Peyton: Has my hon. Friend satisfied himself that adequate steps are being taken to provide the harbour and dock facilities which will be necessary if we are to be able to use the fast and large tanker of the future? Will he also take all the proper steps that he can take to ensure that British ships are in a position to make use of these facilities when they are provided?

Sir I. Horobin: I think all these matters are not matters for the Ministry of Power but for the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will not be a percentage increase in dependence for oil supplies on any one group in any one area at the same time?

Sir I. Horobin: All crystal-gazing is dangerous, and to be as explicit as that ten years ahead does not commend itself to me.

Iron and Steel Industry

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if he will use the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to keep in use production facilities which are being closed down on Tees-side and in other iron and steel producing areas of the country.

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir.

Mr. Palmer: Under what circumstances would Section 5 of the Iron and Steel Act be used? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in my constituency of Cleveland alone, quite apart from the rest of Tees-side, between 1,000 and 2,000 steel workers are likely to lose their jobs at present?

Sir I. Horobin: On the first part of that supplementary question, which is hypothetical, I should not like to express any opinion at all. As to the second part, in relation to the situation on Teesside, a decision would depend largely on whether we expect the present demand position at home and abroad to be permanent or to be temporary. As my original Answer indicates, Her Majesty's Government at present do not consider that any action of this kind would be desirable.

Mr. Marquand: Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to take action if it should turn out that the depression lasts longer than has been indicated? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Tees-side large quantities of structural steel are made? Are the Government prepared to put the Severn Bridge project into rapid execution if there are increasing signs of depression?

Sir I. Horobin: A question on that specific point ought to be put down.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if he will make a statement on the present recession in the iron and steel industry; and what action the Government propose to take.

Sir I. Horobin: The demand for certain steel products has declined. This means that the industry is now temporarily working under capacity in certain sections. No Government action would be justified at this stage to deal with this fluctuation in trade.

Mr. Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman say on what evidence he or the Government base their view that this is purely a passing phase?

Sir I. Horobin: Partly on this: it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that the most recent figures, which are admittedly only up to the end of March, show that home consumption this year is actually rather higher than last year. What has happened is a very great fall in exports. Therefore, that should drive home to all concerned the necessity for competition. We do not envisage a situation in which the British iron and steel industry would not be fully competitive, because we believe it to be one of our most progressive industries.

Mr. H. Morrison: If this industry had not been denationalised, I take it that the Conservative Party would blame the present state of affairs upon nationalisation?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not quite know. What matters is what is happening now. That is the main thing. Both the nationalised section of this industry, happily only small, and the denationalised section suffer exactly alike. Nationalisation or denationalisation does not alter the fact that we have to sell at a profit.

Coal Gasification

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what research he is promoting in regard to the high pressure gasification of coal.

Sir I. Horobin: The first commercial scale high pressure coal gasifier is about to be built by the Scottish Gas Board at Westfield in Fife, and the North Western Gas Board is constructing a commercial plant at Partington in Lancashire which includes another type of high pressure gasifier intended to work initially on oil and later on coal. The Ministry hopes to complete within the next few months a new experimental high pressure gasifier which has been commissioned for research into other aspects of this problem, and parallel work on gasification is being carried on by the British Coal Utilisation Research Association on the Ministry's behalf.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient is being done in this direction? Does he appreciate the tremendous scope for the gas industry if research can be speeded up?

Sir I. Horobin: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is to the obvious advantage of the British coal industry to have as much flexibility as possible. In the last few days I have seen one of these very interesting experiments. It is impossible to say which of them will prove the winner, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal is being done.

Industrial Buildings (Thermal Insulation)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Paymaster-General what progress has been made with the drafting of the Regulations under the Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act, 1957; and by what date he anticipates it will be possible to lay them before Parliament.

Sir I. Horobin: Consultations are continuing on the preliminary proposals circulated by my Department to representative organisations last February. My noble Friend hopes to be able to lay the Regulations before Parliament before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the requirement of the Act is that these Regulations should become effective from 1st January, 1959, or
such earlier date as the Minister may decide.
Can he say whether it will be possible to make them effective before 1st January, 1959?

Sir I. Horobin: Not at this stage. We must give everybody an opportunity to make observations and we must then consider them. At the moment, it does not appear likely that the proposals will require very substantial modification.

Overhead Power Lines (Berkeley)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Paymaster-General how many overhead power lines he has authorised to be erected running northwards and eastwards from Berkeley; and of what height the pylons will be.

Sir I. Horobin: No overhead lines have yet been authorised. The height of the towers, if authorised, would be 89 feet.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be received with a certain amount of surprise, because officials in that part of the world have been very busy contacting landowners about overhead lines? Is he aware that in a very short period the country will be covered with a spider web of power lines unless some better plan is put up? Is there no possibility of distributing electricity without covering the whole country with these hideous pylons?

Sir I. Horobin: It is technically possible, of course, to put the lines underground, but the extra cost is quite fantastic over long distances. Therefore, the Ministry makes every effort to see whether it can combine economical distribution with the minimum damage to amenity. It is impossible to please everybody, but we do our best.

Coal (Supplies and Prices)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Paymaster-General whether, with a view to preventing any increase in the price of household coal, he will allow reasonable imports of Polish coal.

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir. The Governments' decision to end the statutory control of house coal supplies and prices is based on the industry's expectation that sufficient supplies of coal will be available without the need of imports.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that Polish coal suitable for household use can be imported and off-loaded into merchants' yards at £1 per ton cheaper than its British equivalent? In view of the fact that we are now ending coal rationing, could it not be possible to allow people freedom to trade both in exports and imports? I am sure it would help British shipping, and the householder and industry as well.

Sir I. Horobin: It would be the desire of all concerned to give our industry a chance to fulfil its expectations to provide the coal without our committing ourselves to any kind of decision about what might need to be done in the—I hope unlikely—event of the industry not being able to do what it hopes to do. We must bear in mind that a large part of this Polish coal is almost certainly dumped and that that raises problems of its own.

Mr. T. Williams: If Polish coal can be imported at £1 per ton cheaper than English-produced coal, how is it that we have been losing £10 million, £20 million or £30 million upon imported coal for so long?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that question arises. The figures arise from a relationship between export and import prices, which is a thing of the past.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on both sides of the House have been struggling for years since the end of the war to rid ourselves of dependence upon foreign coal? Will he therefore not resist every pressure to bring coal from Poland, America or anywhere else, but use our own coal to maximum advantage?

Sir I. Horobin: I have already said that if we can provide our own coal at the proper price and quality it is obvious common sense so to do. I do not think that I need to go beyond that.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if, in view of the proposed ending of statutory control of the retail price of coal, he will withdraw the Ministerial letter of 5th February, 1954, and give the National Coal Board the same freedom in relation to price policy as exists for the other nationalised fuel industries.

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir. Although the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in their recent report, questioned the informality of the present arrangements, they approved their purpose. My noble Friend is considering the Committee's Report and will express his views in due course.

Mr. Palmer: Surely that statement is inaccurate and the Select Committee recommended that the present position should be ended as being unfair to the National Coal Board?

Sir I. Horobin: Nothing that I have said differs from that. The point at issue is that the Select Committee made a recommendation that one type of control, namely, the gentleman's agreement, should be replaced by direction. That is a recommendation of the Select Committee which, with other recommendations, my noble Friend is now carefully considering.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Aircraft Industry

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Supply the approximate number of those engaged in all branches of the aircraft industry; and his estimate of the number that will remain at the end of the reorganisation of the industry.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): About 250,000. The number in the future will depend upon the volume of orders obtained. On present orders and inquiries it would be about 150,000 in five years' time.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this industry recruited in the post-war years a large body of highly skilled men at all levels? May we take it that one of the right hon. Gentleman's main duties is to see that the scaling down of the industry is scientifically planned so that the skilled ability of these men is not allowed to be wasted but is diverted to some parallel occupation?

Mr. Jones: I have recommended to the industry that, in so far as it spread itself into activities other than aircraft, so the problems arising from the contraction of orders for aircraft would be mitigated. Diversification would be a good policy to pursue.

Earth Satellites

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent his Department is now encouraging and financing a British earth space satellite programme.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: No financial support is at present being given by my Department to an earth satellite programme. There are, however, constant consultations with my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and with the Royal Society about the scientific value to be derived from such a programme.

Mr. Mason: While appreciating the part that cost must play in the matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, in view of the development of the intercontinental ballistic missile and the expense involved in that, is not the cost factor added to that relatively small to launch a satellite into space? Secondly, has any research been conducted into the development of conquering gravity without the present high

speeds and thrust which are required, particularly the evolution of an antigravity technique which will allow us to escape the present gravitational pull of the earth?

Mr. Jones: I am not at all sure that I understand the second part of the hon. Member's question, but on the question of cost, clearly that has to be balanced against scientific value. As matters stand, the countries which have launched satellites are pledged under the rules of the International Geophysical Year to disclose information and data to other countries. That being so, it would be premature to decide whether or not we have a ballistic missile to launch into the satellite programme.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be better to employ someone to launch the Government into space?

Mr. Beswick: Even though we are not ourselves considering the projection of a missile into space, we as a country would have some interest in all these other missiles which are being sent up by other countries. We have an interest in getting liaison and co-operation with the other countries concerned. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be his Department which will be concerned with co-operation after the determination of the I.G.Y. arrangements?

Mr. Jones: If I may indulge in a correction, I did not say that we were not considering launching a satellite programme. I said that this was a matter to be kept under constant review, the scientific value always to be weighed against the cost. My Department is mainly a military Department. The scientific advice on what should be done must necessarily come from the Royal Society and the Lord President of the Council. My Department is the researcher, the developer and, if I may say so, the fabricator.

Transport Command (Aircraft)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what new orders have been placed, or are about to be placed, for transport aircraft to enable the Royal Air Force Transport Command to undertake trooping operations.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: No new orders for large aircraft for Transport Command


have been placed since the contract for Britannias was increased to twenty at the end of last year. As the House knows, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is currently examining operational requirements.

Mr. Beswick: May we take it that when the Minister of Defence said the other day that in future Transport Command would be carrying out trooping operations, he was talking a little prematurely and there is no indication of any immediate orders for further transport aircraft?

Mr. Jones: I am afraid I am not here to answer for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what practical steps have now been taken to maintain the firm of Short Brothers and Harland as a fully-balanced aircraft design and production unit.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The various contracts which Short Brothers and Harland now hold for the design and production of aircraft and guided weapons do employ them as a balanced unit. For the rest, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on 2nd December, 1957.

Mr. Beswick: The Minister will probably recognise these words as having been used by the Parliamentary Secretary in a recent debate when he said that all practical steps would be taken to maintain this firm as a fully balanced unit. Can the Minister say what those words meant and what practical steps have been taken?

Mr. Jones: The practical steps clearly must consist of contracts placed. I would ask the hon. Member to appreciate that any Government—he would be in the same position as I hold—is the victim of a conflict of authorities here; one is the owner and the other is the customer. What one would like to do as owner one might not like to do as customer in the light of past practice and delivery times quoted.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Wessex Regional Hospital Board

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Health if he is yet in a position to fix a date on which the Western Area of the South-West Metropolitan Region will become a separate Wessex Regional Hospital Board.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) on 13th June, I intend that the date shall be 1st April next, and I am taking the necessary steps to bring the new region and regional hospital board into being on that date.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that on both sides of the House hon. Members from the Western Area are very glad to know that he decided to do last Friday what we have been asking him to do for a long time? His decision to make the area into a separate board will give tremendous satisfaction to all who have worked in the Western Area to build up an efficient National Health Service. They will be very grateful to him.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am very grateful in my turn for what the hon. Member has been good enough to say.

Mr. J. Morrison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those on this side of the House are particularly grateful for his help in this matter, which has caused universal pleasure to all those concerned in the area?

Mr. Peyton: Before he made this decision, did my right hon. and learned Friend consult the South-Western Board and also opinion in the neighbouring areas, particularly in South Somerset and the northern part of Dorset?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir, this decision was taken after examination over a period, as indicated by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). In the light of all the relevant circumstances, locally and nationally, I think we have come to the right decision.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Health what would be the approximate annual extra cost of making the Western Area of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board a separate board.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) on 10th March.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that there is some dispute between his advisers and the members of the Western Area as to the amount of actual expense involved, and it is the belief of the Western Area that the gain made to the South-Western Metropolitan Hospital Board may offset the extra expense involved in setting up the new administration?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, the estimate I gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is an estimate of the ultimate additional cost based on the cost of comparable regions of similar size, such as the Oxford Region and the East Anglian Region. I very much hope that the estimate will prove to be excessive, and I shall certainly expect the new board to keep its costs down to a minimum.

Private Beds (London)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health how many private beds are now available in London hospitals and nursing homes, as compared with the number before 1939 and before the creation of the National Health Service.

Mr. Walker-Smith: At 31st December, 1957, 2,255 beds were available under Sections 4 and 5 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, in the Metropolitan Police District. I understand that there were 2,288 beds classed as private beds in the same hospitals shortly before the inception of the National Health Service, but as there was then no accepted definition of the term "private", the figures are not strictly comparable. I regret that information for 1939 and for institutions outside the National Health Service is not available.

Sir G. Nicholson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to see that these beds are being fully used? Is it not a fact that they are not being used as much as they should be?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I do not think, as a generalisation, that that is right. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Act which makes these beds available for cases requiring urgent medical attention.

I think that between those two uses they are kept pretty well occupied.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that full use is being made of these beds, because the last figures suggested that perhaps almost as much as one-quarter or one-third of them were not in use?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is not 100 per cent. occupancy. There never would be, as the hon. Member, with his experience, will appreciate. As he knows, these beds are used for their primary purpose and can also be used for the purpose to which I have just referred. Taking those two things together, there is a reasonable use of these beds, but I will certainly look at the matter, in answer to the hon. Member's request and that of my hon. Friend, to see whether anything can or should be done to promote the occupancy rate.

Mr. James Mills

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the case of Mr. James Mills, a patient for the past 12 years at Rampton Mental Hospital; and what possibility there is of his transfer in the near future to an ordinary mental hospital nearer his home.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This patient is not yet ready for transfer but his case will be kept under review.

Children's Hospital, Southampton

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Health what plans have been accepted for alterations to the Children's Hospital at Southampton; and when it is anticipated that the present buildings will be replaced.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am informed that work will begin almost immediately to improve the wards and ancillary accommodation at this hospital at an estimated cost of £20,000. Proposals for the future development of Southampton General Hospital include the provision of a children's unit to replace the Children's Hospital, but I cannot say when it will be possible for this development to take place.

Mr. Howard: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough to publicise the circumstances which led him to reach the decision about patching


the Children's Hospital in view of the fact that there is considerable disquiet among my constituents in Southampton about the wisdom of spending money on this old property?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not know about publishing it, but in summary I can tell my hon. Friend that the present condition of the Children's Hospital is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, and in view of the uncertainty as to when funds can be made available for the major development of Southampton General Hospital, it seemed necessary to carry out these improvements.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that all Southampton is agreed that the Children's Hospital is an old-fashioned and unsuitable building, that extensions and improvements are simply second-best solutions, but that the local board must be guided by the capital resources at its disposal? We should be grateful if Southampton could have some idea when the major projects for the Children's Hospital are likely to take place.

Mr. Walker-Smith: A preliminary estimate of the cost of the proposed development at Southampton General Hospital, which, of course, includes much more than the children's unit, is said to be about £750,000 to £1 million. It is a big matter, and the regional hospital board has not yet put proposals before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Poliomyelitis (Inoculations and Vaccine Supplies)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health (1) the categories of persons for whom registration is at present accepted for vaccination against poliomyelitis; and when he anticipates he will be able to extend the priority to other categories; and
(2) when he anticipates there will be enough vaccine against poliomyelitis for all persons at present registered to have the full three vaccinations.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The classes at present eligible for vaccination are children over six months old born in or after 1943, expectant mothers, general practitioners, ambulance staff, hospital staff

whose work brings them into contact with acute poliomyelitis, and the families of the last three groups. By 30th April, the latest date for which detailed information is available, over 3 million persons in Great Britain had been vaccinated with two injections, just over 2½ million were awaiting vaccination and a further 500,000 were awaiting their second injection. On that date the local health authorities held 1 million doses of vaccine and they have since received over 5 million more.
This is more than sufficient to complete the vaccination with two doses of all persons registered by 30th April if they are willing to accept the type of vaccine available.
Registration is a continuing process, and further supplies of vaccine are being distributed from time to time to keep pace with new registrations.
I cannot at present make any statement in regard to extending the offer of vaccination to other priority groups or about the giving of third doses.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will cause very considerable anxiety in the country? Is he aware that some of the categories outside those he has mentioned feel very aggrieved at the idea that they will not be vaccinated against poliomyelitis, particularly people in the sanitary service? I sent to the Minister details of a case in which a man died as a consequence of not being vaccinated.
Is the Minister also aware that at present eight children in Halifax, the highest number ever registered there, are suffering from this disease in consequence of not having been treated? When is he going to get sufficient vaccine to enable the three doses, which are essential, to be given and for the appropriate categories to be dealt with?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am bound to say that I am surprised at the questions asked by the hon. Member, although little that he says in fact surprises me. In answer to his Question, I made a statement pointing out that sufficient vaccine is available to deal with the programme we have announced, and then he asked if I was aware that my Answer would cause anxiety. On the contrary, I should have thought that it would cause gratification to all right-thinking people.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the number of these who have refused vaccination on the ground that they cannot have the type they prefer?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The response to the offer of Salk vaccine varies in accordance with the areas, but, in answer to the right hon. Lady's general question, I would say that, on the whole, parents are accepting the advice of the Medical Research Council and are having their children vaccinated with the vaccine available in their area rather than let them go unvaccinated over the summer season.

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the increase in the numbers of poliomyelitis cases in London during 1957, he will give an assurance that a sufficient supply of vaccine will be available to give all the people eligible for inoculation two injections.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The London County Council already has sufficient vaccine to complete the inoculation with two doses of all persons registered on 30th April. Further supplies are being distributed from time to time to keep pace with new registrations.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in close touch with the medical authorities in the London area, because there is a fear that they will not have enough, particularly as some people are dubious about allowing the Salk vaccine to be used?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad to say that we are in very close and continuous touch with the medical authorities of the London County Council. I think that they are quite happy with the position as it is. They will no doubt bring to the notice of parents the advice of the Medical Research Council about the use of the Salk vaccine.

Mr. Edelman: Have there been any unfavourable results from the use of the Salk vaccine?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Not that I know of.

Smoking

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health if he will undertake a pilot inquiry to ascertain what percentage of

smokers starts smoking regularly during each year of age between 12 and 20.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): My right hon. and learned Friend does not think there is a need for such a specialised inquiry since there is already a good deal of information published or being collected about the ages at which persons start to smoke regularly.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the Minister feel that as his right hon. Friend passed on to the local authorities the distribution of information about the possible relationship between smoking and cancer of the lung and other diseases, they should at least be given information as to what class of people they must try to influence most?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir. Various small-scale inquiries have been made and most of them have been published. They show that the large majority of smokers have begun to smoke by the age of 20. Although estimates vary, a significant proportion have begun to smoke before the age of 16.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health if he will institute a pilot inquiry as to the physiological and sociological effects of giving up smoking by those who have smoked not less than 20 cigarettes a day for at least 20 years.

Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Member would care to write to my right hon. and learned Friend elaborating his suggestions, he will gladly bring them to the notice of bodies which might be prepared to consider the value of such an inquiry.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the Minister agree that people who have smoked for many years before giving up this habit, as they are sometimes urged to do for the sake of their health, should know what is involved in this? Is not that an important question with which everybody ought to be made familiar?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir, but of course the Ministry is not equipped to undertake an inquiry of this sort. There are other bodies which might do so if the inquiry were to be pursued. I have in mind the Medical Research Council or the British Empire Cancer Campaign.

Dr. Summerskill: Is not the hon. Member aware that this is a matter for the Minister of Health? In view of the very serious information we have had about cancer of the lung, could he tell the House whether any action has been taken in schools with the view to bringing this matter to the notice of boys under 20?

Mr. Thompson: The whole object of our propaganda in this matter is to discourage people from acquiring the habit rather than to cure them when, unhappily, they already have it

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH

Cancer

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what exchange of information and research into the causes of cancer takes place between the appropriate official authorities and organisations in the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Experience has proved that the most valuable international scientific liaison is that which takes place on an informal and individual basis and such communication between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and this country has recently shown signs of increasing. The attendance of a number of Russian experts at the International Cancer Congress in London next month will provide a further opportunity for useful

contacts to be made in this field of research.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in this field we have a common and very dangerous enemy and that his Answer will be received with pleasure in many quarters?

Mr. Kershaw: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether research into cancer in this country is hampered in any way by lack of money?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think not. The research into cancer in this country is making progress, as my hon. Friend knows, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) has pointed out, this is an international sphere in which we are anxious to pool our knowledge. I am grateful to him for what he said.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN

Brian Caldwell Cook Batsford, esquire, for Ealing, South.

David William Ernest Webster, esquire, for Weston-super-Mare.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Opencast Coal Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — OPENCAST COAL BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.


New Clause.—(COMPENSATION FOR DEPRECIATION OF OTHER LAND IN SAME OWNERSHIP.)



(1) This section applies, in relation to a compulsory rights order, to any land which—



(a) does not form part of the land comprised in the order, or of any holding to which section sixteen or section twenty-eight of this Act applies, but


5
(b) immediately before the operative date of the order, is land wherein the interest of the owner is held by a person who is also the owner of the whole or part of the land comprised in the order.


10
(2) Where a compulsory rights order has become operative, and in the case of any land which, in relation to that order, is land to which this section applies (in this and the next following subsection referred to as "the relevant land") it is shown that for any year (being either the year beginning with the operative date of the order, or a year beginning with an anniversary of that date and falling within the period of occupation) the annual value of the relevant land is less than the annual value of that land would have been if—


15
(a) the land comprised in the order had not included any of the owner's land comprised therein, and



(b) all the owner's land comprised in the order had remained in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date,


20
the person who is for the time being the owner of the relevant land shall be entitled to compensation from the Board for that year of an amount equal to the difference.



(3) Subsection (2) of section seventeen of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section, so however that the appropriate circumstances referred to in the said subsection (2),—


25
(a) in determining the annual value of the relevant land for any year, shall be taken to be the actual circumstances existing immediately before the beginning of that year, and


30
(b) in determining what would have been the annual value of the relevant land in the circumstances specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the last preceding subsection, shall be taken to be the circumstances specified in those paragraphs:



Provided that in either case the relevant land shall be assumed to have been available for letting with vacant possession immediately before the beginning of the year in question.


35
(4) Where a compulsory rights order has become operative, and in the case of any land which, in relation to that order, is land to which this section applies it is shown that the value at the end of the period of occupation of the interest in that land which then constitutes the interest of the owner thereof (in this and the two next following subsections referred to as "the owner's interest in the relevant land"), computed in accordance with paragraph (a) of the next following subsection, is less than the value of that interest computed in accordance with paragraph (b) of that subsection, the person who at the end of that period is entitled to the owner's interest in the relevant land shall be entitled to compensation from the Board of an amount equal to the difference.


40


45
(5) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection there shall be computed the following values, that is to say,—


50
(a) the value at the end of the period of occupation of the owner's interest in the relevant land, assessed on the assumption that, in so far as any of the owner's land comprised in the order has not then been restored to the condition in which it was immediately before the date of entry, there will be carried out on that land in due course all such work as would qualify for compensation under section twenty-one of this Act;


55
(b) the value which, at the end of the period of occupation, the owner's interest in the relevant land would have if the entirety of the owner's land comprised in the order were in the state in which it was immediately before the date of entry.

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause has been put down to fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Standing Committee to deal with an injustice, in the Bill as it then stood, to the owners of land. The position was that in the Bill we had improved the compensation position of occupiers by allowing the compensation to be assessed over the whole of their holding but, in the course of doing that, we had, as I explained in detail to the Standing Committee, left the owner in the position that he could not claim compensation for injurious affection in cases similar to that in which he would have been so able to claim if his land had been compulsorily purchased. I also explained that it was impossible for the Government to go beyond that, and to offer compensation in cases of injurious affection relating to land not in the same ownership, as that would make a breach in the general compensation law.
I should explain briefly to the House that this Clause has to be accompanied by consequential Amendments to the Sixth Schedule. It will also be necessary

to introduce, in another place, certain technical consequential Amendments to Clause 33, which deals with the time when compensation accrues due; to the Fifth Schedule, which deals with minerals, and to the Tenth Schedule, which deals with certain transitional provisions. However, they need not trouble us now.
As in other cases in this Bill, the compensation dealt with under the Clause falls into two parts: the annual value while land is in possession of the National Coal Board, and terminal compensation afterwards. I do not think that at this late stage of the Bill—unless any questions should arise—the House would wish me to spend time in going further into the details of the Clause, beyond assuring right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I think is right, that we have taken care in subsection (6), as with previous changes in compensation, to ensure that there is no double payment. The chief circumstance in which this could arise is where the land is subject to a long-term tenancy where the rent cannot be reduced. In those circumstances, of course, the landlord would not have suffered any damage, and it would be unreasonable for him to obtain annual compensation when he was in fact, still receiving the full rent under the tenancy. Subsection (6) ensures that that position is preserved—

Mr. Joseph Slater: Would the hon. Gentleman make clear one point in that statement? In the case of a tenant being so affected by subsidence that he must leave his holding, to whom would the compensation be paid, having in mind that the owner of the land is already receiving the rent? What about the tenant?

Sir I. Horobin: The Clause is not addressed to that point at all. The provision for compensation to be payable to the tenant for damage of that kind is to be found in other parts of the Bill. This Clause is directed simply to the situation in which the owner of land, part of which is taken but the rest is damaged, will be able to receive compensation for the damage done to the land that is not part of the holding. That is all that this Clause deals with. I tried to explain the necessity for it, in much greater detail, in Standing Committee.
We must be quite clear. The other compensation Clauses deal, rightly or wrongly, with the general compensation. All this Clause is concerned with is injurious affection to land in the same ownership, but which is not part of the same holding. If it is part of the same holding the question does not arise because, as we all know, that is already dealt with in other parts of the Bill. This Clause deals simply with land that may be owned by a man and damaged by the Coal Board, but in which the land that is damaged may not be part of the holding and, therefore, may not attract compensation under the other Clauses of the Bill.
Perhaps I may give an illustration that I gave earlier. Suppose we have a valuable house looking out over a site that has been taken and damaged by opencast mining, but the land surrounding the house is not part of the holding where the opencast work is being done. It may be a park or a farm which has been let out. In those circumstances, the fact that a house might be very seriously damaged would not entitle it, under the Bill as presented to the Committee, to any compensation at all. All we are doing in this Clause is putting that injustice right, to ensure that if land in the same ownership is being damaged by opencast operations, it will attract, broadly speaking, the same type

of compensation as is attracted by land where it is in the same holding.
That is all that the Clause does. It commended itself to the Committee; I gave an undertaking that I would deal with it, and that is the object of the Clause.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: The undertaking which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the Standing Committee to introduce this new Clause was one which he gave to himself, because he raised the point—nobody else did—and he thought it was one that ought to be met.
We do not view this new Clause with great favour, because it appears to us to be giving an unnecessary degree of advantage to the bare owner based on his bare rights of ownership. Perhaps I could explain what I mean with reference to the example which the Parliamentary Secretary himself gave. What is worrying him is this: imagine a man who owns a very nice house in which he lives. He also owns a quantity of agricultural land adjoining, but he does not farm it himself. He lets the farm out to someone else. The National Coal Board carries out opencast coal operations on the farm. They do not touch the owner's house at all. The result is that the amenity value of his house is affected, and it is for that amenity value that the Clause intends he should be compensated.
Without this Clause the owner would not be entitled to compensation because none of the land which is in his occupation is being taken by the Board at all. Compare the position of that owner with his neighbour who also lives in a nice house, but does not happen to own the farm. He suffers the identical loss of amenity value in his holding, but he gets no compensation at all.
The Minister's answer, no doubt, will be that the first owner, one must imagine, acquired the farm to protect himself and to protect the amenity values of his home. That is a good nineteenth century answer. But we live in different days now, and now, with modern planning control, when the second owner to whom I have referred bought his house he will have inquired what were the planning proposals for his neighbour's land, including his neighbour's farm, and he will have learned, as


all other prospective purchasers will have learned, that that land will, as far as can be foreseen, remain as agricultural land, and therefore, he will buy his house, paying as part of the purchase price for the amenity value which derives from that farm.
He will suffer just as much financially as well as in terms of amenity, as will the man who happens to be the freehold owner, the owner of the reversion, of the agricultural land affected. This would apply not only to a neighbouring owner of a nice house, but to an owner of a simple cottage. It applies to everyone. We feel that if compensation for loss of amenity value is to be given, it ought to be given to everyone.
3.45 p.m.
We are inclined to think that the proper course is to draw the line where the line was drawn in the original Bill. One must acknowledge the fact that in all these attempts to do justice in compensation there always will be someone just outside the line, wherever it is drawn, who will have ground for complaint, and that a proper course, therefore, is to give compensation to people who were the occupiers of land that was actually taken, and not to extend compensation for mere loss of amenity value beyond that.
The neighbouring owner, the second man in the example that I gave, under the Bill will or may have rights against the Coal Board to bring a common law action for nuisance, but he is in no different position there, I think we are now agreed, from the owner himself who lives in a nice house. He will be able, as I am advised, to bring an action for nuisance in the same way as anyone else. The effect of this new Clause is to give a special benefit to the owner based solely on his property rights without regard to the fact that he will be suffering no more and no less than his neighbour.
There is one other point that I would make on the contents of the new Clause, and that is to draw attention to the fact that the Clause as drawn, in my view, supports our case on what we consider to be one of the main defects of the Bill, to which I hope we shall have an opportunity to refer in today's debate. The point arises in this way. We consider that one of the defects of the provisions for compensation in respect of further cost of

works to be carried out after the land has been restored to the owner is that it does not enable either the Coal Board or the owner to know in advance what further cost of works will be considered as reasonable and will qualify for compensation.
In Committee, we put forward various alternative proposals on how this situation might be met, and none of them found favour with the Government. It was considered impracticable at the end of the period of occupation to determine in advance what further works should be carried out and what should be considered reasonable. But when we look at the provisions of this proposed new Clause we find that this is precisely what the Clause demands that the valuer shall do at the end of the period of occupation in assessing the compensation which is to be payable.
This arises in subsection (5, a) of the proposed new Clause, where it says that he has to
value at the end of the period of occupation … the relevant land"—
that is, the land not taken—
assessed on the assumption that, in so far as any of the owner's land … has not then been restored … there will be carried out on that land in due course all such work as would qualify for compensation …
Those words are further defined in subsection (7, b), which says:
any reference to work which would qualify for compensation … is a reference to work for the purpose of further restoring that land … being work in respect of which … expenses would be treated as reasonably incurred …
The valuer is expected in his omniscience to be able to know at the end of the period of occupation what are the further works in respect of which expenses would reasonably be incurred, yet the Government say, or have said up till now, that there is no reasonable way in which that matter can be determined as between the Board and the owner. I hope that the introduction of this phrase means that we are to have some concessions from the Government on this point, to which we attach great importance.

Sir I. Horobin: I should like to say a word or two about the points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot). The last one, I think, we had better discuss later, but, in any


case, I think it is based upon a misconception, because we are here merely assimilating these compensation provisions to the general compensation provisions. The difficulty is admittedly there, but there is no new point raised in this new Clause as compared with the Clauses which deal with the terms of compensation in any case.
I agree, as, I think, does everybody who has looked into these compensation matters, that it is quite impossible, under our complicated land system, to provide complete justice for everybody. However, this is not at all the case which the hon. Gentleman made that, apparently, there is something wrong, as I understood him, in basing a claim for compensation on the fact that a man happens to own something. It is still not a crime to own things, although the Inland Revenue sometimes treats us as if it were. The basis for our approach is quite different.
As regards the cases which the hon. Gentleman took, he said quite rightly that, in the matter of loss, they are exactly on a par. Nobody disputes that. The difference between the two, upon which this new Clause is based, is simply that the one who will not be compensated under this Clause never had any rights or powers to stop the development. It may be wrong that he had not, but he had not any such rights, leaving nuisance entirely on one side. We are all liable to be damaged by development next to us if town planning permission for it can be obtained. The people who are being compensated by this new Clause could have protected themselves in the absence of compulsory powers. That is the difference. They could have said to the Coal Board, "You shall not damage my house." In the other case, they could not have said that, for they had no rights. The people with whom we are dealing could have done so.
It seems clear, therefore, that there is a difference, which is enshrined in our present law of compulsory purchase compensation, namely, that these people, having suffered injurious affection which they could have stopped, in the absence of compulsory powers, are a separate case and are entitled to compensation. I do not pretend for a moment that, as a result of all this, we can say that everybody we should like to have compensated will be compensated. All I do say is that we have compensated certain people who would

have been compensated if their land had been purchased instead of being subject to C.R.O., and who are a separate case, having definitely suffered damage. In our opinion, therefore, they are morally and, now, we suggest, legally entitled to compensation.

Mr. Alfred Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary is right in the facts which he has presented to us, but I should like to ask him one question about something he said in Standing Committee on this very matter. He said that the owner of a house might be occupying that house at his own will yet might have let off to another farmer the whole of the farm which he owns and that, therefore, the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman has now brought before us is designed to provide compensation for the owner of both farm and house but to separate the two hereditaments. As a consequence, the new Clause is to provide for compensation for the owner of the house.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the owner of a holding. Surely the holding was the farmhouse and private garden attached thereto, together with the farm. Therefore, would it not have been more equitable if we had described this as the land outside any Order? Do I take it, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that in all cases where an individual owns a farmhouse and land and has let the land off to another farm, himself not being engaged in farming but merely occupying the house at his own pleasure, it is not intended to apply a C.R.O. to the whole of the owner's land, which would include the house, but that the farm is to be separated from the house?
I should have thought that, in most cases where an individual was in such a position, letting the whole of the farm but retaining the ownership, he would probably have had included in the whole of the C.R.O. the house and garden as well as the land adjacent to it. Shall we not, later in the Bill, be discussing questions about how far or how near to such a habitation opencast workings will go? Does it mean, therefore, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, and what he has said this afternoon, that it is intended always to separate the residence from the farmland, if, in fact, the owner of both happens


to be using the residence purely as a home and has let the farm to another farmer for agricultural purposes?

Sir I. Horobin: The short answer is that, of course, the C.R.O. cannot in any case cover occupied dwellings of that kind. We were illustrating this, I think, in the case the right hon. Gentleman is now pursuing, but, as far as the actual house itself is concerned, it cannot be subject to a C.R.O., though it can be damaged.

Mr. G. H. Oliver: There is one point that I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up. I have tried to follow the Parliamentary Secretary very carefully. He said that the owner of land which has been affected by opencast workings has a right to protect himself irrespective of this new Clause. Surely that cannot be right. Once the C.R.O. is granted, he has no power. He may endeavour, when the authorisation is being sought, to resist it, but once the authorisation has been given to the Coal Board and the Board is vested with the order, there is nothing he can do if his property is damaged, unless the Clause so provides.
The new Clause does not provide for the unfortunate person who does not own the land. Perhaps he is a neighbour, or somebody in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot).

Sir I. Horobin: So far as I follow the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), he is quite right: once the C.R.O. is there, the owner has no further powers in this matter. But that is not the point. The point arises from the difference between him and the type of owner cited by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), who, in circumstances before the C.R.O. and in the absence of the compulsory powers we are dealing with, had no right to object at all. He has, therefore, lost nothing compensatable.
In the absence of any of these powers, if the Coal Board or anybody else came down on the land, as it is envisaged might happen, he would have no right to object, in the absence of nuisance. In the case we are considering, however, he would. He could have prevented the Coal Board coming on by agreement.

That is the distinction. In the one case, therefore, we say that, just like anybody else in the unfortunate position of having a power station established which emits grit all over his land, he just cannot stop it if the authority has town planning permission. On the other hand, he can stop it if the authority wants to do it on his land.
In the one case, if one's land is bought, one does not receive any compensation, but, in the other case, one can obtain it for injurious affection. I will not go into all the refinements of separation, and so on, but, broadly speaking, if an authority takes a bit of one's land and damages the rest, one can obtain compensation if it is bought.
What we are doing is to provide that, if after a C.R.O. on a part of one's land, the authority damages the rest, one can still obtain compensation for injurious affection. In very broad terms, we are assimilating the law of C.R.O. to the law of C.P.O. I am very carefully saying "in broad terms" because, as hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite know very well, there are certain points which arise. In broad terms, all we are doing here is to say that, in the kind of case where a man can obtain compensation for injurious affection if the land has been bought, he shall have his compensation if the land is made subject to a C.R.O.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) to move the Amendment to the proposed new Clause, I would point out that there appear to be three Amendments later on the Notice Paper which may be related. There is the Amendment to Clause 16, page 20, line 12, in the name of the right hon. Member for Blyth and other hon. Gentlemen, to leave out "operative date" and insert "date of entry", and there is an Amendment in page 21, line 4, again in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, to leave out "operative date" and insert "date of entry." Later, there is another Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, to Schedule 6, page 75, line 32, to leave out "operative date" and insert "date of entry". Is it possible that all these Amendments raise points which could be discussed now?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Robens: It is possible to take them all together, Sir. It is a matter of a principle. The other Amendments would automatically follow upon this one if the Government see fit to accept the first one.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 11, to leave out "operative date" and to insert "date of entry".
I think it would be convenient to discuss all four Amendments together, Mr. Speaker. They all deal with precisely the same point. As far as the new Clause is concerned, the Amendment is of a consequential nature. It bears very little relevance to the subject matter of the new Clause.
The Amendments arise out of the Government Amendment to Clause 4, on page 2831 of the Notice Paper, in page 6, line 3. That is the Amendment by which the Government propose, as the result of an undertaking given in Committee, that the Board should be required to give 56 days' notice to the date of entry instead of 28 days' notice after the operative date before they become entitled to enter upon the land. The purpose of these Amendments is to provide that in those circumstances, and anticipating that that Amendment will be passed, the annual compensation, the rental compensation, and the additional compensation, the loss of profits compensation, should, in these circumstances, all date from the date of entry, not from the operative date.
The operative date is, as it were, a purely notional date to the farmer. It is the date from which he starts measuring the period when he is liable to be dispossessed, and it is the date from which he knows he must set about doing certain necessary things to end his occupation, such as selling up his stock and implements that he does not want to keep. Of course, in practice he will have had informal notice a considerable time before that. No doubt he will have been given an indication in his discussions with the Board, but that is the legal position.
We feel that if there is to be this extended period it is not right that the Board should have to pay compensation from the operative date, when the farmer will have had the extended period of 56 days, during which he may continue to

occupy and, in some circumstances, to occupy very profitably. I suppose that the kind of circumstance in which this point might arise most sharply would be a not unusual one, namely, where the Board had arranged matters so as to take occupation very shortly after the end of the harvest. I understand that, in practice, that is the normal thing that is done.
Naturally enough, the Board waits until the farmer is able to take in his crops and harvest before it starts its opencast coal operations. If one imagines that situation, the harvest will be lifted in the 56-day period. As matters stand at present, the result would be that the farmer would get both the value of the harvest and also his compensation for loss of profit under Section 18 as if he had never had his harvest, because his Section 18 compensation would be back-dated to the operative date and would be based on the purely hypothetical profit that he would have earned from the operative date.
This is a case where we all want to be generous to the farmer within reason, but we feel that it would be over-generous to him and would place an undue and unfair burden upon the Board. For these reasons, we propose that the compensation should date from the date of entry.

Mr. Tom Brown: I beg to second the Admendment.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General, Who has just come into the Chamber, will pardon our persistency and help us upon the Amendment.
We had considerable discussion in Standing Committee upon the point at issue. We have not changed our minds, but after the promise given by the Parliamentary Secretary we were hoping that he would at least change the situation in the new Clause. It would appear to the layman that there is a very slight difference between this side and the Government side, but to the farmers there is a great difference. The question is: when shall compensation begin? Shall it begin on the date of entry, or shall it begin on the day that the opencast coal mining operations begin?
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) will agree with me, because he is a farmer, that in some cases the prospectors, who are engaged by the


National Coal Board, enter on the estate or on the farm of the farmer and remain for eighteen months and even longer. During their prospecting they do a considerable amount of damage. I know that they do not do that damage intentionally, but in the process of boring operations they are bound to upset the farmer's land, and they may upset it at a very important time.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Mac-Dermot) said, they may come in during harvest time. It must be remembered—and I know that you have some knowledge of this, Mr. Speaker—that there are different harvesting times for different crops. The prospectors may come in during early August, late September, or in November. Crops are being gathered in many farms practically the whole of the year.
The short point is, should compensation begin on the day that the opencast coal operations begin, or should it begin from the day of entry? Hon. Members opposite say that the Government are anxious to ensure fair play, to act honestly and to deal justly with the farming fraternity. In my judgment, unless they accept the Amendment, they are not dealing fairly or honestly with the farming fraternity.
I made reference in Committee—and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) made play about this point—to "bleeding boreholes." I was not responsible for the coining of that phrase. It was coined by the legal luminaries in a compensation claim. They referred to the bleeding boreholes which had been left by prospectors and borers, and a considerable amount of damage was experienced by that farmer. After all their boring and prospecting they failed to find the coal resources simply because they were not there.
Will anybody say that to refuse compensation to that farmer is right, honest and just? The farmer allowed the prospectors to enter under Section 61 of the Defence Regulations. In the nation's interest, he let them come on to his land. After they had been given permission to occupy his land and had retarded the normal procedure on the farm, they then said, "We shall have to give it up. We have failed to find the coal sections. There are no coal resources here. We shall

clear off." Are we to deny that man compensation?
The Government said in Committee that they wanted to be honest and fair and to be helpful and amenable. I cannot bring myself to think that the Government are acting fairly. I hope that they will accept the Amendment. It would make the provisions of the Clause more fairer, more just and more honest to the farmers on whose land opencast operations have to take place.

Mr. Harold Neal: We are indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for reminding us that the introduction of the new Clause is in fulfilment of a promise he made in Committee, but I do not recall that it is in response to any plea from Members on this side that the Clause should be drafted in the way we find it today. There seems to be a partiality about the Clause which does not appear in other features of the Bill.
It seems unreal and unfair that annual compensation, rental compensation and compensation for loss of profits should begin on the operative date rather than upon the date of entry. It might satisfy us on this side if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us how the annual value could be lessened before the date of entry. I can well imagine that by the time that 10,000 tons of coal have been extracted from a site the depreciated value is noticeable; but on the day before even the surveyors enter the land I cannot see how the value can be depreciated.
Those who are actively concerned in this matter must surely laugh at this generous provision for those who are to receive compensation in this way even before the Coal Board has "smelt" the ground. I shall be pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us how this is justified by proving that value can be lessened even before the date of entry.

Sir Peter Roberts: I have only one point to put to the sponsors of the Amendment, who have raised the question of compensation for a farmer who has got his crops in. A point about which I am not happy, if the Amendment is accepted, is that a farmer who, for instance, is a milk producer and has a pedigree milk herd knows that he has to finish with the herd in, say, two months' time. Naturally, he will have to sell his milk herd early in advance. He then


waits—one does not know how long—until the Coal Board comes in, in which case he is making no money whatever.
I would like to have that point cleared up. As far as I can see, the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) is that the farmer might be paid double compensation for his harvest. That is most unlikely. There must, however, be a continuing damage to a person who sells off in advance and then has to wait three or four months until the Coal Board comes in. Under the Amendment, the farmer would get no compensation whatever.

Sir I. Horobin: First, we should dispose of the misconception of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who seconded the Amendment. The whole object of the Amendment, right or wrong, is to reduce the compensation to farmers. That, I assure the hon. Member, is the object of the Amendment and it was made clear by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal). To use a colloquialism, the hon. Member was rather "off the beam".
All questions of what happens during prospecting are irrelevant to the Amendment, because prospecting must in the nature of things take place before the operation of the compulsory rights order. What we are concerned with in the Amendment is the period of time—56 days, it may be—between the compulsory rights order and the date of entry. Therefore, the whole of the discussion as to whether damage could be done by prospecting and whether the farmer should be compensated for it is beside the point. The object of the Amendment is to reduce the money paid by the Coal Board to the farmer and we must discuss it on that basis.
4.15 p.m.
I am not saying that we can be 100 per cent. certain that exact justice is done, but, on balance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) pointed out, the Clause as drafted is right and I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. Let us be quite clear that we are now dealing with land upon which a compulsory rights order has become operative.

Mr. T. Brown: indicated dissent.

Sir I. Horobin: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. Perhaps one of his hon. Friends will be able to persuade him. We are dealing with land upon which a compulsory rights order has become operative.
It is true that the extent of damage that can be done before anybody has started digging will normally be much less than after the digging has been begun, but it is not reasonable for anybody to argue seriously that no damage can be done. In cases where a change of tenancy or ownership takes place, the damage might be serious. If a man had to get rid of his tenancy, he would suffer serious damage, because nobody would take over land knowing that in 56 days the Coal Board was coming to start digging. Therefore, damage can take place, although in most cases it will be slight and the extent of it will be taken into account in the calculations which are made.
Concerning the harvest, an additional point which should be made is that in nearly all cases—I dare say, in all cases—it is the sensible practice of the Coal Board, which, I am sure, will be continued, that its entry would take place after, and not in the middle of, a harvest. There might be circumstances in which it became extremely important to do otherwise, but the Board has usually been reasonable in these matters. In practice, even if it were not fully taken account of, as it is in the calculation of compensation, it would not be likely to be important. The point is that once land is subject to a compulsory rights order, it can be depreciated and, therefore, we should not from the very start cut out all rights of compensation.
As we are discussing at the same time, I understand, later Amendments in which the same points arise, I should like to make clear, in case it may have been overlooked by the drafters of the corresponding Amendment in Clause 16, page 20, line 12, that it would have a very undesirable effect. I am advised that the same principle which they have attempted to apply would have the preposterous effect that the expenses of vacating possession under Clause 19, which, obviously, would normally be incurred before the date of entry, would, if the Amendment at that point were accepted, result in the occupier receiving no compensation at all. I am sure that hon. Members opposite


do not expect that result, but their Amendment would have that effect.
The short point of all these Amendments is that once a compulsory rights order has become operative, the possibility and likelihood of damage to the annual value of the land occurs. That being so, we ought not from the start to cut out any possibility of compensation. The Amendment would not deal with the question of whether it was properly calculated. I think that the provisions in the Bill would have the desired result, but in any case the Amendment would not deal with that point. This Amendment would cut out any right to compensation for any damage, even if it did occur, within that period of 56 days. On balance, I think that the House will feel that it would be wrong not to compensate the occupier if he can establish damage.

Mr. MacDermot: The Parliamentary Secretary has put forward weighty arguments, and I say at once, on the point to which he has directed our attention, that the effect of the Amendment on what I call the forced sale compensation in Clause 16 is not one which we had envisaged, and it is not the effect which we intended. If we can, even at this late hour, persuade the Minister to change his mind, we would invite him to give effect to our intention much more effectively than the way in which we have done it ourselves.
There is here a real difficulty which ought to be faced, but which is not being faced, and I am confirmed in that view by the Minister's assurance that it will continue to be the practice of the Board to time its entry so as to enable the farmer to get his harvest in. The sensible thing is for the Board to come in as quickly as possible afterwards, because the farmer cannot do anything with the land after he has got his harvest in. He cannot prepare it for a new harvest. Everybody's time will be wasted if the Board does not start as soon as possible after the harvest is in.
What the Minister says is that the order becomes operative at the operative date, but that is so only in a legal sense, and the way in which it becomes operative is that that is the moment as from which the Board can take the first step which it has to take under the order, such as giving this notice to the farmer

of the date on which it is to enter. Let us remember that under Clause 4, that date is to be, at the moment, not less than 28 days. We are assuming that the Government Amendment will be accepted, so that it will be not less than 56 days after the first publication, and not more than six months after the operative date. The period that we have in mind, to which the hon. Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) referred, is a period which amounts at most to six months and at the least now to 56 days.
If, and we are assured that it will continue to be so, the date of entry is to be timed to come just after the end of the harvest, it means that the farmer will be able to get his harvest in, get all his profit for that year's farming in the form of his harvest, and yet have his compensation backdated as if he had never got his harvest in at all. As I understand, the Minister does not seek to deny that at all. I will give way if—

Sir I. Horobin: I should make this perfectly clear. As I envisage this procedure, it would not be so. I think that anybody having had his harvest would find that that would be taken into account in the compensation which he received, but I was answering the point that the number of cases in which the question would arise would be small, because the operation would be so timed as to ensure that cases of this kind do not arise. I do not accept for a moment that the annual compensation provisions, with which we are not directly concerned in these Amendments, would enable a farmer to obtain his profit, plus compensation for loss of profit.

Mr. MacDermot: In view of that, it would appear that we are at variance in our interpretation of the compensation provisions, and I am sure that it would be wearying and detaining the House if we attempted to argue the matter more fully now. It seems that we are at one in our intention, namely, that there should not be a duplication of compensation to the extent that I have envisaged, or, to put it another way, that a farmer shall not be entitled to compensation on the basis of loss of profit when in fact he has made his profit, and perhaps a very substantial profit, and not lost it at all. I would urge the Minister to undertake to look at this point again.
Perhaps I should try now to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Heeley. What he envisages is the case in which the farmer receives his notice of entry from the Board giving a date, say, four or five months hence. The farmer has a dairy herd, and he finds an opportunity of disposing of his herd which he thinks it is wise to take, and he does so. He may do so two or three months before the expiry of that notice and before the actual date of entry. The result is that he ceases to earn any income or profit on that herd from the date on which he disposed of it.
I readily agree and concede that, as we have drafted our Amendment, that farmer would suffer loss of profit during that two or three months' period, and would receive no compensation for it. I quite agree about that, but what I would urge is that the number of cases in which injustice would operate that way against the farmer would be fewer if our Amendment were accepted than the number of cases in which injustice would operate against the Board if matters stand as they are now. Perhaps a solution, can be found whereby this annual compensation, and, more important, loss of profit can be determined as from the date when the loss begins to be suffered. I do not know whether a formula could be found which would assist in that way.
Meanwhile, I submit that the most frequent contingency will be that the Board will give notice of entry to take possession very shortly after the harvest is got in, because that is the time when it would be wise to enter, and it would be sensible to enter upon the land as soon as possible and not waste time. The land is of no use to the farmer once he has got his last harvest in, but under Clause 18 as it stands, as I understand, the position is that loss of profit is not to be based on the loss which has actually been incurred during that period, but is to be based on a hypothetical calculation of the profit based on the profit he was earning in previous years.
The result is that if that is dated back to the operative date before the time of the harvest he will get both rental compensation and loss of profit compensation as from the operative date, which ignores completely the profit that he has, in fact, made out of that harvest. There will be a duplication. There are difficulties about

it and arguments both ways, but I feel that the scales are loaded too heavily against the Board. I should like the Minister to look at the matter again and see whether he cannot introduce an Amendment in another place which will provide a fairer result to all concerned.

Sir I. Horobin: As the hon. and learned Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has said, to argue this matter at full length is almost impossible, and the difficulties of drawing the line anywhere are by now fairly clear to all of us.
I am very chary of holding out any hope, at this late stage, of a further Amendment to this Clause. We have done our best to put it in the right place. In view of what the hon. and learned Member has said, I will, of course, look at the point, but I must make it absolutely clear, at this very late stage of the Bill, that we must reach finality at some time. We have done our best to hold the balance fairly between the farmers, who are, in any case, having a rather rough deal in some ways with opencast coal mining operations, and the Coal Board, which has its duty to do.
I will look at the point, but hon. Members must be quite clear that I am making absolutely no promise at all to introduce a change, because I feel that one change at this stage will be found inevitably to lead to claims for another. I think that we have drawn the line as close as we can to the right place. I will look at the point again on that understanding.

Question, That "operative date" stand part of the proposed Clause, put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PRESERVATION OF AMENITY.)

(1) Where for the purposes of section one or section two of this Act

(a) the Board are formulating any proposals as to the working of coal by opencast operations or the carrying out of operations connected therewith, or
(b) the Minister is considering any such proposals, whether in relation to the granting of an authorisation under section one or to the imposition of conditions under section two of this Act,

the Board or the Minister, as the case may be, having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical


features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest, shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects.

(2) The provisions of the preceding subsection shall apply, with the necessary modifications, where—

(a) the Board are formulating any proposals as to the restoration of land affected by the working of coal by opencast operations or by operations connected therewith, or
(b) the Minister is considering any such proposals, whether in relation to the granting of an authorisation under section one or to the imposition of conditions under section two of this Act,

as those provisions apply in the circumstances mentioned in the preceding subsection.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.30 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Here, I hope, I shall not be taken to task when I say that the proposed Clause fulfils an undertaking, because I believe that this is an alteration which every hon. Member who was in the Standing Committee and, indeed, every hon. Member in the House will welcome.
When the Bill was introduced, I think that all of us on both sides believed that the amenity provisions required very careful examination. We have already made one or two important improvements in that respect, but the new Clause carries the matter very much further. The Clause puts a definite duty upon the Coal Board and the Minister when they are formulating or considering proposals under the authorisation provisions of the Bill to take into account a whole series of amenity considerations which I believe we all feel ought to be very carefully considered. The Clause follows broadly, as I suggested in the Standing Committee, Section 37 of the Electricity Act of last year.
All I want to do—I feel that this will probably be generally welcomed—is to point out that, while the Clause requires the Board and the Minister to take into account certain factors, this is by no means window-dressing, especially in what I might call the post-Franks era. The situation will be that the Board will have to explain at the public inquiry precisely what it is doing in relation to the various points of protecting flora and

fauna and geographical features—trees, buildings of architectural interest and the rest—and be open to cross-examination.
The inspector, in his report to the Minister, will have to say, with reference to all those points, exactly what is his advice to the Minister. This report will always be available to anybody who wishes to see it. Any big local authority, any responsible organisation like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, any responsible person who wants to see it, will be able to do so. The Minister, in his published decision, will, in his turn, have to deal with the inspector's report.
Therefore, we shall be in the position that in every one of these cases where amenities are at stake the Board will have to say how it proposes to preserve them, they will be subject to discussion at the public inquiry, the inspector will have to give his report upon them, people who desire to do so will be able to discover what the inspector has said, and the Minister will have to say what he is doing about them and why. I am sure that the proposal will be generally welcomed as a great improvement by those who are keen about amenities.

Mr. T. Brown: I want to express from this side of the House our appreciation and gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General for keeping their promise. It was due to our persistence during the Committee stage that we secured the promise about the preservation of amenities which is now being fulfilled by the Government.
For a considerable time—for more years than I care to remember—I have been a very ardent advocate of the preservation of amenities, particularly in districts where amenities are scarce. Here I refer to the mining areas. All who have passed through the mining areas, especially in the North-West and the North-East, appreciate the devastation which has been caused by deep mining. Such persons will understand why those of us who are ex-miners are such vehement advocates of the preservation of amenities.
As I said in Committee, we have for too long neglected the amenity side of our industrial areas. When the Bill was before the Committee it contained nothing which would afford protection to such


amenities as woodlands. What has been done has been due to our efforts. I see the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. He shook his head once before. I attach very little importance to his shaking his head when we condemn the Government for not including in the Bill a provision to preserve amenities. We are, however, very glad that the Government made a promise and have kept it, for that is all to their credit.
I would emphasise what this sort of thing means to the people living in mining areas. Anyone who has travelled in mining districts where deep-mined coal operations have gone on for four or five centuries knows that the devastation problem is great and cannot be solved. On the other hand, a pleasing feature is that the devastation caused by opencast mining is easier to solve.
We made a deliberate, desperate attempt—I appreciate that if I continued at some length on this point I should be ruled out of order—to protect our woodlands and forests by means of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. We sought to improve the position in the Forestry Act, 1951. We find, much to our regret and annoyance, that those Acts fall far short of what is required. This Bill would also have fallen short. It is one thing to put upon the Statute Book a Measure which we calculate will prevent certain things being done, but it is a vastly different proposition when what we say ought to be done is not done by the regional officers.
I am concerned that the Clause should not be taken lightly, and that its importance to the preservation of amenities should be appreciated. I do not want regional officers to approach the matter lightheartedly. In most cases, they will be dealing with people who have lived in conditions of devastation for more than a century, the devastation caused by deep mining. Surely we have reached the stage in this century when we can make an entirely different approach in considering what should be done to create beauty where it can be created, especially in industrial areas.
In this matter I may be misunderstood by other hon. Members, but I have not yet been convinced that I am wrong in believing that much of the future prosperity of Britain depends on its

forests and woodlands. No one can challenge the argument that we cannot attach too much importance to the preservation of our forests and woodlands. They are important in ameliorating climate and in supplying the needs of industry. Every farm needs a forest or woodland or shelter belt. Where they have not existed, farmers have provided them and are fully aware of their great benefit.
Agriculture, horticulture and every form of husbandry is dependent upon trees. Although many people do not fully appreciate the importance of trees, especially the people in industrial areas, the fertility of these islands may be due to the sheltering hedgerows of trees which have not only protected fields from storms and winds, but have sent down roots to tap minerals and bring them to the leaves which, when they have served their purpose of carbon assimilation, have fallen to the ground to replenish the soil. Are we to allow the National Coal Board or even the Minister to ravage the woodlands of the countryside?
I sometimes think that opencast mining should be reduced to a minimum, if not abolished. I know of the difficulties of the national economy, but I also know that people have responded to the nation's needs in spite of the abominable devastation which has had to result. In view of the sacrifices which have been made since 1941, the Government ought at least to pay some attention to the wishes of the mining areas today.
The Clause is a promise, a promise which I hope the regional officers will fulfil. It is a promise that our woodlands and forests will be preserved for future generations. What right has this generation to exploit the country's coal resources which are near the surface? Such resources play an important part in the production of crops. It may be that the shallow seams are there for some good purpose. We all know that deep coal serves a good purpose, and yet we have wasted a considerable amount of what the Divine Creator gave to our country.
4.45 p.m.
Now we are advocating, I hope successfully, that we should continue carefully to consider any threatened inroads upon our woodlands and forests. We cannot tell the possible consequences


of removing coal, and our trees have been of immense importance to our economy. I feel very strongly about what has been taking place since opencast mining first began. It is our duty to be outspoken on these matters and to make practical suggestions so that our woodlands may be saved. The percentage of woodland in this country is the smallest in Europe. Less than 6 per cent. of our land is covered by woodland, while in France the figure is 25 per cent., in Germany it is 26 per cent. and in Belgium it is 18 per cent. I hope that the Government, the Coal Board and all concerned will ensure that the Clause is fully implemented when it becomes law.
As I said in Committee, there is nothing more important to me than the preservation of forests and woodlands, especially in the mining areas. I will not dwell on the points which I had intended to develop this afternoon, but whatever our political philosophy, Tory, Liberal, Labour or Socialist, our duty is to preserve our woodlands, not so much for the present, but for the rising generation, who will thank us for it.
Whittier said:
Give fools their gold, and knaves their power,
Let fortune's bubbles rise and fall;
Who sows a field or drains a flower.
Or plants a tree, is more than all.
What would he have said about men and organisations who have been concerned with the preservation of trees which were planted by our ancestors? That is our job. Let us not run away from it.
I feel no bitterness towards those people who live in the South of England and who say that that is where all the beautiful woodlands are, but in the North, North-West and North-East we are entitled to have our few woodlands preserved against the ravages of opencast mining.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has read in the Manchester Guardian this morning—I hope he has—a report of an important conference which took place on Saturday last, 14th June, where there was advocacy by the ordinary working man, supported and strengthened by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), that more attention should be

given to the industrial areas by local authorities, county councils, etc.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting very wide of the new Clause.

Mr. Brown: I am carried away by my own enthusiasm. I welcome this Clause and I hope that the regional officers, the Minister and all concerned will see that the new Clause in its entirety is applied to the areas which have been devastated so much in the past. I heartily support the new Clause.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I cannot equal the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) but I heartily endorse his sentiments.
I intervene briefly and only because of a letter which I received this morning from a very important constituent of mine, who is well known and highly esteemed throughout North Staffordshire, and who is also well known to many of my hon. Friends in this House who represent mining constituencies. He is Mr. Tom Lawton, of Alsagers Bank, Halmer End, Stoke-on-Trent. Years ago he worked in a pit and suffered a terrible accident. For a very long time indeed he has borne the agonies of paraplegia with the most remarkable fortitude. He is one of the real heroes of the mining industry whom I am proud to know and represent. He writes:
I observe in Thursday's HANSARD that a debate on the Opencast Coal Bill is to take place next Monday. How I wish with all my heart that all the Members representing North Staffordshire and all the mining constituencies, and some of the Government's Ministers could come to Church Hills opencast site in North Staffordshire during the weekend before this debate takes place, to see for themselves.
Complaints over a period of many months have been made to me from many friends when they have visited me, but not having seen the Church Hills for some years, although I have seen two photographs, one showing a spoil heap and one a gaping hole,
that must be one' of my hon. Friend's bleeding boreholes—
I never realised the ravages the operations had inflicted on what was once a beauty spot, which provided untold pleasure to many people. The lovely church, grounds and hills are a noted landmark for many miles around. Last night, when my son returned home from work, he took me on my first outing for the Past eight months"—


he has been in hospital for that period of time—
to see the site and nothing that I can put in writing can adequately express my feelings of horror.
He then goes on to refer to an article by the Director of Production, National Coal Board Opencast Executive, which appeared in the Daily Herald in mid-May He quotes from this article:
The Board recognise that in the course of opencast operations there must inevitably be some temporary disturbance, and this often causes local criticism, but opencast mining, as carried out in Britain, does not permanently harm the land.
My constituent asks:
Do the same principles and the same code of restoration of land apply where the opencast operations are operated by private enterprise?
He is referring to the fact that at this opencast site of Church Hills in North Staffordshire the workings are being made by licensees under the National Coal Board. He goes on to say:
I express the sincere hope that representations will be made for the full restoration of the Church Hills and grounds and that the same will be successful, and that restoration will be implemented soon.
In drawing attention to this matter and fully endorsing what my constituent says. I hope that the National Coal Board and the Ministry will take note of the ravages that have been made in an area like North Staffordshire, which has already suffered tremendously from the inroads of industry upon beauty spots and amenities. I hope that the very best will be done to restore this beauty spot, which is famous, at any rate for the young people in the whole of this vast conurbation.
I should like to ask the Minister from what date, or when, does that part of the new Clause which concerns the restoration of land affected by the working of coal by opencast operations apply? Will it apply from the time that the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? That is to say, will it apply to opencast operations going on now and to proposals made later for land restoration, or the restoration of amenities that are necessary following present operations; or at what stage does the Board formulate its proposals for the restoration of land and when does the Minister consider them?
The Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I am asking these questions about the site which my constituent has

mentioned, because I am wondering whether any benefit might be gained from this Clause in relation to this site. If the Clause is accepted and the Bill is passed into law fairly soon, will it benefit us at all in North Staffordshire in regard to existing opencast operations and existing schemes of land restoration? I shall be pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary can give me that information about the timing of the application of the latter part of the Clause.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I should like to say a word on this new Clause on behalf of the National Trust, of the executive committee of which I am a member. The National Trust has in the past, not surprisingly, been somewhat disturbed at opencast operations and the threat of operations not only on land in which it is interested or which is in its ownership but also so far as amenities generally are concerned.
The Trust is appreciative of the efforts which the Government have made under this Bill to preserve amenities so far as reasonably possible, and in particular the Trust will be glad to see the introduction of this new Clause which strengthens the amenity provisions of the Bill. The Trust is also grateful to the Government for having included it on the same footing as local authorities and statutory undertakers in the First Schedule of the Bill.
There is, however, one question which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary and on which I should like an assurance. There is in the Second Schedule, paragraph 4, a statement which is open, I think, to more than one interpretation. The legal advisers of the Trust have read it and they fail to understand it very clearly. I must say that I certainly cannot understand it at all. It seems to me that there is a possibility that that paragraph nullifies the provision in favour of the Trust and local authorities in the First Schedule.

Sir I. Horobin: Which paragraph is that?

Mr. Robinson: I am referring to paragraph 4 of he Second Schedule which may modify paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. Possibly the construction of this is perfectly clear to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should be glad if he would either give an assurance that it does not in any way modify the earlier provisions,


or—if there is doubt about the construction of it—that he will have it looked at in another place in order to make the intention quite clear. I am perfectly sure that there is no intention to modify the earlier decision, but officers of the Trust feel that in fact it may do so. Possibly, at a later stage, the hon. Gentleman can give me the assurance that I need.

5.0 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: On the last point, which is a technical point and which I do not think actually arises on the Clause, I think I had better say to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that I will look into it carefully and have a word with him between now and a later stage if that is necessary. It need not detain us now because I have just looked at the Schedule and it certainly cannot affect this any way.
The only thing to which I think I should make a short reference is the observation of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) opposite. The position, briefly, is this. Until the Bill becomes operative we are, of course, dealing with Defence Regulations, and, therefore, nothing with which we are dealing here can affect the matter one way or the other. But once the Bill becomes operative, all these provisions with which we are dealing in this Clause arise at the very first stage, because the Coal Board cannot work, or, as Clause 1 says
cause or permit any coal to be worked
until it receives authorisation. It is at the very beginning of the thing that these matters have to be taken into account, before the Minister gives his authorisation. Therefore, if I have understood the hon. Member's question correctly, I think the position is that until the Bill becomes law nothing we are discussing can improve or alter the Defence Regulation provisions. But once the Measure comes into operation these amenity provisions become operative at the very earliest stage before the National Coal Board can do or permit to be done anything which would damage amenities.

Mr. Swingler: Does that apply to existing operations?

Sir I. Horobin: No, it will apply only to operations under this Bill. All the ones going on now are taking place under

Defence Regulations and, for reasons explained upstairs, in order to prevent a loss of coal production, we have to go on for a certain time under Defence Regulations, because, otherwise, the National Coal Board would be in the impossible position of not being able to get the machinery working under the Bill and there would be a hiatus which would mean the loss of millions of tons of coal.
Certain new sites are still being started off, as it were, under Defence Regulations in order to keep up the flow of necessary coal, but as soon as the transitional period is over and action by the Board begins to take place under the provisions of the Bill, then the preservation of amenity proposals which we are discussing in the Clause and elsewhere in the Bill will come into operation at the early stage before any damage to amenity can be done.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary assure my hon. Friend that the Church Hills site to which he referred will be restored under the code of restoration which was agreed in 1951, so that he need not fear that the whole thing will remain in its present devastated condition, but will, in fact, be restored? I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary will assure my hon. Friend and his correspondent about that.

Sir I. Horobin: Yes, that is perfectly true. I thought that we were all reasonably aware of the great improvements made even under Defence Regulation procedure and that the land will, in fact, be restored under that procedure. All I want to make quite clear is that, so to speak, these improved provisions which we are putting into the Bill cannot be retrospective. They will operate only when the National Coal Board is operating under the Bill when it becomes an Act. However, I do not want to suggest that land will be left completely derelict or even as bady restored as years ago.

Mr. Neal: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will absolve me from any desire unnecessarily to prolong this discussion on what appears to be a Clause which has the general acceptance of the House, but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question arising from his observations when he moved the Clause. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on coining the phrase "post-Franks era", because


this is a period in which public inquiries will be held to determine whether the Minister will grant an authorisation for opencast mining to take place.
The Clause places important obligations upon the Minister. The Clause states that the Minister
shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features buildings or objects.
So far so good, but in elaboration of this the Parliamentary Secretary told us that when the public inquiry had been held the report made by the inspector who conducted the inquiry—presumably this inspector would personally see the amenities that were in dispute and would report to the Minister—will be made available to every responsible person. In the past such reports have not been made available in detail. Indeed, many of them have never seen the light of day. All that have been made available to the public have been the bare facts as the inspector found them, but his advice to the Minister has never been made known to the public.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary merely making a courtesy promise on behalf of his right hon. Friend, or is something included in the Bill which enforces this obligation? I cannot find anything in the First or Second Schedules which makes it obligatory for the report to be made available.

Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There is no legal obligation in the Bill to do what I just told the House would be done; but, of course, the Government have already gone on record as saying that they are, generally speaking, in agreement with the Franks Committee recommendations. I have inquired carefully into this point, and, as in certain other matters our Ministry is concerned with, for instance, the Trawsfynydd nuclear inquiry and others, it is intended that with the Minister's decision there shall be available the inspector's report. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
As I have risen again, I should like to say one thing which I ought to have said earlier to safeguard myself with regard to the special case to which reference has been made. I never think it right to give an opinion—I hope I did not—on a

special case, because, of course, I do not know. It is conceivable from what the hon. Member said that this would be one of those cases which is already going on and, therefore, would not be under the Bill. I cannot be taken to be expressing any opinion on the specific case. I am glad to see that the hon. Member is satisfied on that point, but it is just as well to make it quite clear. The general case remains as I put it to him.

Mr. Swingler: The site to which I am referring is a National Coal Board site, but one which is being operated by licence. The proposals for land restoration have not yet been made, and I am interested to know whether such proposals for land restoration could be made under these provisions.

Mr. Harold Davies: I appreciate that the Minister cannot answer hypothetical questions as to what will happen in the future, but he made it very clear that the action which is now taking place is taking place under the old Defence Regulations. Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill, in that it will afford increased opportunities for reasoned protests to be made before opencast operations commence. The Bill says that the Minister shall have regard
to the desirability of preserving natural beauty of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features …
In the Biddulph area of Leek there is a dispute about opencast operations at Knypersley Pool. The operations are being planned, and they will therefore be affected by two methods of procedure.
If the Bill becomes law before the Board begins its operations, I gather that there will be more power for protests to be made against opening up the beauty spot. I sincerely hope that if the Clause is accepted by the House the Minister will give the maximum amount of attention to the gobbling up of the few amenities which exist in industrial parts, and will be able to hear more of the protests by local authorities in this connection. I hope that he will give them every opportunity to meet him, and that he will also meet the North Staffordshire anglers and others who are concerned with the amenities in one of the last beauty spots in this area.
I can assure the Minister that my colleagues who represent North Staffordshire constituencies and I will use every legitimate method to protest about the opencast development in the Knypersley Pool area. In the meantime, I hope that he will listen to the constructive criticisms of the people of North Staffordshire about Biddulph, in particular.

Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary will have gathered from the speeches of hon. Members on this side of the House that we are appreciative of the new Clause. I rise only to make it clear that the present opencast coal operations of the Coal Board provide for the restoration of the land to the maximum extent possible, although under the Defence Regulations there is not the same protection as the Bill will provide.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was quite right to raise this matter, because it cannot be repeated too often that for years the ability to restore these sites has considerably improved. During the last weekend I spent a good deal of time in Northumberland, looking at restored sites, and apart from obvious things like the absence of trees which had been ripped up and not yet replaced, and fences and natural hedges, which had been replaced by wooden fences, nobody who had visited that spot before the opencast coal operations commenced would be able to see very much difference in the contours of the land.
5.15 p.m.
Now that we are enshrining authority for opencast coal operations in an Act of Parliament we have preserved for ourselves the provision that we lay down in connection with other nationalised industries and similar undertakings which have to use land in this or some other way, namely, that they must be responsible for restoring the land as best they can, with all the modern advantages that they now have. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that in recent years there has been no lack of desire on the part of the Coal Board, the local authorities, the National Farmers' Union, and all others concerned in the matter, to carry out a really first-class job of restoration. He would probably also agree that no country has as much know-how about restoration as we have. It is doubtful

whether any other country carrying out operations of this character would bother very much about restoration.
I am sure that we all welcome the Clause. In Committee, hon. Members on both sides, including the Parliamentary Secretary, were adamant in their view that we must preserve the amenities of the countryside. The problem was to find a form of words to carry out our desires. The Parliamentary Secretary has done what he promised to do in Committee, and I accordingly welcome the Clause on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself. We hope that as the work proceeds we shall be able to do a good deal more restoration—particularly replanting, because what my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) says about trees and woodlands is not in the least exaggerated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and adder to the Bill.

New Clause.—(GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON EFFECT OF COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)

(1) The rights conferred by a compulsory rights order in accordance with subsection (5) of section four of this Act, or in accordance with subsection (3) of section five of this Act, shall not affect any of the rights mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section.

(2) Subject to the next following subsection the said rights are:—

(a) any right of support for any land not comprised in the order, or for any building or structure on any such land, or any right of action of any person in so far as it arises from the withdrawal of support to which he is entitled for any such land, building or structure;
(b) any rights of any statutory undertakers, or of the body carrying on a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking, or of any river board or other drainage authority, in respect of any apparatus on, under or over land comprised in the order, being apparatus in respect of which, at any time since the granting of the authorisation referred to in the order, the Board have been entitled to serve a notice under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, applied by section twelve of this Act.

(3) In relation to an opencast site order, the said rights also include the rights conferred by any agreement made by the Board and for the time being in force whereby (apart from this Act) the Board are required to leave any coal unworked.

(4) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, the rights conferred by


a compulsory rights order as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section—

(a) shall not affect any right of action of a person who is not a person directly concerned, and
(b) in the case of a person directly concerned, shall not affect any right of action of his in so far as it arises otherwise than by virtue of his being entitled to an interest in or right over land, or in so far as it arises by virtue of his being entitled to an interest in, or right over, land not comprised in the order.

(5) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the operation of subsection (4) of section four of this Act, or of subsection (2) of section five of this Act.

(6) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section nothing in section four or section five of this Act shall be construed as authorising any interference with the exercise of a public right of way.

(7) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (8) of section four of this Act, or in subsection (6) of section five of this Act, a person shall not be taken to be a person directly concerned in relation to a compulsory rights order by reason only that he is entitled to any such right as is mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section.

(8) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, here shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945.—[Sir I. Hornbin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is a dull but important machinery Clause, which carries out one or two undertakings made in Committee. We have taken advantage of it to make a number of drafting changes, and also to cut out a certain amount of duplication in Clauses 4 and 5, which will somewhat shorten the Bill. After an introductory subsection, subsection (2) deals with the definition of certain rights which remain unaffected by any compulsory rights order. They are rights of support for land and certain important rights of statutory undertakers, such as sewerage undertakings, drainage authorities, and so on.
The subsection makes it quite clear that the Board cannot withdraw support from neighbouring land; it must include in the order all the land which is likely to be affected directly by opencast working or indirectly by the withdrawal of support. It also makes it clear that the various statutory undertakers, or near-statutory

undertakers—in respect of whom we had a considerable discussion in Committee—must be dealt with by the Board under the special Clause 12, which gives them special protection in matters of parliamentary procedure. This point was raised by hon. Members on both sides in Committee. They said that it should be carefully considered, in fairness to those bodies which have important responsibilities of this kind.
In subsection (3), I fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee dealing with agreements for the sterilisation of coal. We felt that it was right to draw a distinction. It would not be fair to the Coal Board to preserve in perpetuity, against any action for opencast coal, certain sterilisation covenants which the Board had inherited and which might have been drawn up 100 years ago before anyone thought of opencast coal. On the other hand, we did not think it was right that the Board should be entitled to override sterilisation agreements which the Board itself had made. The subsection deals with the matter along these lines.
Subsection (4) is largely the result of a little interchange between the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Mac-Dermot) and myself on the question of nuisance. I am sure that he will be glad to see that we have redrafted the Bill to make it quite clear that we did not have the ludicrous position which might arise where the very persons most concerned might lose their right to action for nuisance because they were the persons directly concerned. We have made it quite clear that everybody still retains the right to action for nuisance in the ordinary way against the Board.
The only other subsection to which I need draw attention is subsection (6), which has been inserted for the removal of doubt. We want to make it quite clear that nothing in Clauses 4 and 5 gives the Board a right to interfere with the exercise of a public right of way. There was a possible doubt there and we felt it wise to take the opportunity to put the matter right. This is a machinery Clause to carry out a number of undertakings and to make a number of tidying-up points. Subsection (8) is the Scottish application. I do not think that there is anything controversial in any way in the Clause.

Mr. MacDermot: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not a controversial Clause, or that there would not appear to be any need for it to be controversial. I reserve comments on subsection (3) until we discuss the Amendment to it, but I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the consideration which he has given to the point I raised in Committee about action for nuisance by the owner of land part of which was taken. On considering the matter further, I am not really very certain that there was a great deal of substance in the first place in the point that I raised. The fact is that such a person will have the right to action for nuisance. It was probably preserved in the original wording, but the draftsman appears now to have put the matter beyond doubt and I am grateful for the attention which has been given to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Robens: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, at the end to insert:
Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that the purposes for which those rights were conferred will not be prejudiced by the proposed opencast coal operations, he may at the time of confirming the opencast site order direct that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the order.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this is a machinery Clause, and it is not highly controversial, if, indeed, controversial at all. But we should be most careful that we do not lay down as part of our legislative process something which is unreasonable and which we might regret at a later stage. We have tabled the Amendment, therefore, to enable the Parliamentary Secretary to look once again at subsection (3) of the new Clause, which deals with agreements made by the Coal Board for the sterilisation of coal.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred briefly to this matter and said that whilst old agreements which the Board had taken over when the industry was nationalised, some of which dated back 100 years, had by now automatically fallen away, the purpose of the subsection was to make sure that the Board, by reason of this legislation, did not escape its responsibilities under those agreements which it had made for the sterilisation of coal. In general terms, one would agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, and

one should not use legislation designed for one purpose for another and entirely different purpose.
We felt bound to raise this matter by tabling an Amendment to give the Parliamentary Secretary a little time for reflection on what appears to us a common sense proposal, although I do not say that the words of the Amendment are necessarily the correct ones. The Parliamentary Secretary may agree that there might be a case, though I doubt whether it would occur very frequently, where the Board had agreed to provide support for a specific purpose but, when it came to dealing with the land for the purpose of opencast mining, the reason for the support might have disappeared because of the circumstances surrounding the extraction of the coal. In such a case, it would be foolish if a pocket of coal were left on an opencast coal site, to which the provisions of the Bill had been applied, and the coal was not extracted because it happened that the Board had agreed to sterilise the coal for some reason or another.
An example which comes readily to mind is where an opencast site is astride a roadway and authority has been given for an alternative roadway to be made, either permanently or temporarily, thus enabling the Coal Board to take out the coal which was supporting the original roadway, because when it came to reinstating the roadway, in accordance with the Traffic Act and Ministry of Transport regulations, other materials would be put in to support it and the coal would be taken out.
There are two such cases in my constituency. One is an A-class road and the other is a Class 3 road, both of which will be dug up. The Class 3 road will be restored, but it would be wrong to leave the coal which now supports it. As to the A-road, advantage is being taken of the opencast site to make a road diversion. It would be wrong to sterilise the coal to support a roadway which will not exist when the opencast operations have been completed. It may be that in these two cases agreement to sterilise the coal was made some time ago.
On the other hand, there will be cases where the Coal Board has made an agreement, in the course of the normal working of a pit, and particularly a new pit, to sterilise coal which might be under farm


buildings. In those circumstances, the buildings might be taken down and re-erected, in which case the support of the coal which had previously been sterilised would not be required.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his more expert knowledge of these matters, will be able to cite a number of cases where the Coal Board had honestly made an agreement to sterilise coal for the support of some object and where subsequently, in the course of operating a very large opencast site, that which the coal was supporting was to be removed and restored later on. In such a case, there is not much point in leaving the coal there and sterilising it.
5.30 p.m.
The only point of the Amendment is to enable the Minister, if he is satisfied about the purpose for which the coal was sterilised by agreement is no longer required and that the support and restoration can be carried out in other ways, to absolve the parties from the agreement to sterilise the coal. We do not seek to put the Amendment in to enable the National Coal Board to be relieved of any agreement entered into on a general scale, but the Minister must have power, where he is satisfied in conditions such as I have indicated, to relieve it of the obligations which it took on for an entirely different purpose.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that there is a constructive viewpoint about the matters which I have described and that the words provide an opportunity for him to think about it. The words themselves are not terribly important, and we would not dream of pressing them if the Parliamentary Secretary thought it worth while to consult the Board about the matter. It might be able to give him a number of real cases. I hope that the Minister will seek in another place to take advantage of the opportunity of this Amendment, which would benefit not only the operation of the Bill but opencast coal working.

Sir I. Horobin: While I appreciate the terms in which the Amendment has been moved, I hope that it will not be pressed.
I want to make two points. The first is that we are dealing with the use of compulsory powers and not to relieve the National Coal Board of agreements into which it has voluntarily entered. In the

kind of case to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I would not think there would be the slightest difficulty of agreeing to bring the sterilisation agreement to an end. Just as it was voluntarily entered into, it could be voluntarily removed. We are dealing here with compulsory powers. We presuppose that somebody with an interest in the matter feels that he would be damaged by the agreement being brought to an end. It seems wrong in principle to use compulsory powers to relieve somebody from an agreement into which he has entered voluntarily.
The second point is that the Amendment could have an almost indefensible result. It could be used to relieve the Board of the provisions of a sterilisation agreement which it might enter into in the future when it knows all about the provisions of this Measure, which would be absurd. We ought to rest on the principle that if people come together, are prepared to say that a certain agreement of this kind is obsolete and are agreed to get rid of it, by all means let thorn get rid of it. If somebody who benefits by an agreement is not prepared to agree because he would be damnified by its coming to an end, we should not use compulsory powers to enable him to escape from an undertaking voluntarily entered into. I see that a certain type of case might arise, but the case for rejecting the Amendment is very strong.

Mr. Robens: I would only ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he had noted that this is a matter of Ministerial discretion. I would think that on going to a new site a new agreement might very well be made on the basis that the site was not to be worked for opencast coal, and that there might come an occasion when it was being worked for opencast and when such a sterilisation agreement ought to be set aside if the other party were unwilling to withdraw from the agreement. I would think it the height of folly to leave an area of coal sterilised while digging all around it merely because one party to the agreement refused to meet the situation with common sense. The Amendment gives Ministerial discretion where undue difficulty is met with on the part of the other party to an agreement.
While I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the proposed


words, I would still think the Amendment worth while considering. When we consider this matter again, the Minister may well come to the conclusion that the Amendment is reasonable and may wish to include it in another form. Otherwise, could he indicate more definitely that the proposal is unworthy of further consideration? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not turn it down completely flat without further consideration. We could have a situation in which we would be confronted with folly that would not be to the advantage of either the Coal Board or anybody else. I hope the Minister can promise to give the matter further consideration after consulting the people engaged in the work.

Mr. MacDermot: Could the Minister help us by giving an illustration on this point? His remarks were directed forcefully to the pros and cons of giving compulsory powers to either party to a voluntary agreement, but might there not be cases where a sterilisation agreement was voluntarily entered into by the National Coal Board not to give protection to the mineral owner, who was not affected at all by opencast coal working, but for a different purpose? It might be a case where the mineral owner would not suffer loss but desired to protect himself by the sterilisation agreement if the coal working took place. It seems unreasonable that he should have the power to hold the National Coal Board up to ransom and that opencast working in the national interest be seriously prejudiced.

Sir I. Horobin: All I can say in answer to that interruption is that we have continuous observations on various operations from the National Coal Board, and we have no reason to think that this is a matter to which it attaches importance. In fact, we have not had any observations from the Board that it has long-standing sterilisation agreements. It cannot be very long ago, because the Board has only been concerned with this matter for ten years. There are many matters in the Bill on which the Board has very strong views, but this is not one of them.

Mr. Robens: The Coal Board is not responsible for legislation; that is our task. It may be that the Board did not raise this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary. We can quite understand that,

but this is something which Parliamentarians observe. They have experienced it in their constituencies and they are responsible for legislation. There may be cases where it is in the national interest that this power should be reserved to the Minister, not to the Coal Board. I am asking whether the Minister has consulted the Board. This consultation is a two-way traffic and this is one of the things on which I should have thought he could satisfy himself, (a) that we were wrong, or (b), that he should do something about the matter.

Sir I. Horobin: I did not misunderstand, but I was merely answering the point put by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot). I agree that these matters are appropriate to raise in the House. I was only saying that this particular trouble, if it is a trouble, had not been brought to our attention. This is the last occasion on which Amendments can be dealt with in this place. If the right hon. Member and his hon. Friend think that chapter and verse can be given in another place, well and good, but we have no evidence put before us to show that there is an overwhelming practical case to set against the very strong point of principle which I put to the House that we should not use compulsory powers given for a quite different purpose to enable anybody to get out of an agreement quite recently and voluntarily made.
Of course, if a strong case could be put that there are a large number of these cases the proper procedure would be to move an Amendment, based on such a case, in another place. The onus of proof, surely, is on those who want to amend the Bill, especially at this late stage. I was very forthcoming in Committee in giving undertakings on a number of matters. That is the reason for the large number of Amendments we are considering today, but I do not think that I should go on giving further undertakings. If an Amendment is argued with a large number of cases, if they can be found—this is not a matter of vital importance one way or the other—no doubt it would be dealt with on its merits in another place, but I have no evidence so far which calls for setting aside a principle which, I think, is agreed to be a sound principle, that if a voluntary agreement has been come to the parties should stand by it.

Mr. Robens: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is being rather forceful about this. It is true that in Committee he undertook to look at a great many things and, as a consequence, we have these Amendments on the Notice Paper. Will he also agree that, by being conciliatory and helpful, the Opposition, which have not a Civil Service to help them, nor the right to go to the Coal Board and ask for help, have probably saved him 30 or 40 hours of Committee work?
5.45 p.m.
This is exempted business and we can get along so much more easily when the Parliamentary Secretary meets us with some sweet reasonableness. What he is saying to me now is, "You go to the Coal Board. Make them undo their secrets and tell you all about it. When you have got that information, see someone in another place and ask him to put down an Amendment and have it argued. On the basis of that, we will discuss the matter." I am sure we could get on much more easily, and save a lot of time, if the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual courtesy and kindness, would do that for us. Why should he not have a

New Clause.—(RECORD OF CONDITION OF LAND.)



(1) For the purpose of facilitating the assessment of compensation under Part II of this Act, the Board shall cause records to be made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.


5
(2) In the case of an opencast site order, where the Board have published, served and affixed notices under subsection (2) of section four of this Act, the Board shall cause a record to be made of the condition, as on the date of entry,—



(a) of all the land comprised in the order, and



(b) of any other land which, in relation to that order, forms part of a holding to which section sixteen or section twenty-eight of this Act applies:


10
Provided that, in relation to an opencast site order made in accordance with section six of this Act, this subsection shall apply as if paragraph (b) thereof were omitted.


15
(3) In the case of any compulsory rights order (other than any order made in accordance with section six of this Act) the Board shall, at the end of the period of occupation, cause a record to be made of the condition, as at the end of that period, of all the land comprised in the order.


20
(4) Any record of the condition of land made under this section shall be made in pursuance of a comprehensive survey of the land, in so far as such a survey can be carried out by inspection and without any operations involving the excavation of land or the making of borings therein, and shall include all such particulars of the land and of things in or on the land as are reasonably required for recording the results of such a survey.



(5) Where the Board have caused a record to be made under this section they shall—


25
(a) in the case of a record made under subsection (2) of this section, within twenty-one days after the date of entry, and



(b) in the case of a record made under subsection (3) of this section, within twenty-one days after the end of the period of occupation,


30
send a copy of the record to every person who is then known to them to be a person directly concerned.

word with the Coal Board? He has only to pick up a telephone to get an audience with the Chairman, but it might take me weeks to get such an audience as I have not the authority which the Parliamentary Secretary has.

I want to save the hon. Gentleman time. All I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary is whether he would look at this matter and consider whether there is anything in it. Then he could deal with it properly. We have done so well so far that it would be a pity if we started to argue on matters of procedure. This is a matter on which he could help us.

Sir I. Horobin: We are considerably indebted for progress to the right hon. Member and, in view of what he has said, may I say that without any commitment I will take up the telephone and see what can be done.

Mr. Robens: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

(6) If any person, to whom a copy of a record is sent under this section, gives notice of objection to the Board, within twenty-one days after the date on which the copy was sent to him, requiring the record to be amended in one or more respects specified in the notice, then—


35
(a) if all the persons whose agreement is requisite agree on an amendment of the record (whether the amendment is that specified in the notice of objection or another amendment in substitution for it), the Board shall cause the record to be amended accordingly;


40
(b) if no such agreement is reached, and the objection is not withdrawn, the matter in dispute shall be determined by arbitration.



(7) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, the persons whose agreement is requisite shall be the Board, the person who gave the notice of objection, and all other persons to whom copies of the record were sent under this section.


45
(8) For the purposes of any arbitration under paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of this section—



(a) the reference shall be to a single arbitrator appointed by the Board and the person who gave the notice of objection in consequence of which the dispute arose;


50
(b) except in relation to the appointment of an arbitrator, all persons whose agreement is requisite for the purposes of that subsection shall be parties to the reference.


55
(9) With respect to professional and other fees incurred by persons in obtaining advice or conducting negotiations with regard to any record made under this section, the Minister may make regulations requiring the Board, within such limits (whether as to descriptions of fees, or as to amount, or otherwise) and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, to pay fees so incurred:



Provided that no regulations under this section shall apply to any fees in so far as they form part of the costs of an arbitration under this section, or shall affect any power of an arbitrator with respect to any such costs.


60
(10) In the application of this section to Scotland for references to costs, and to an arbitrator, there shall be substituted respectively references to expenses and to an arbiter.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This appeared, on the face of it, to be an extremely simple business, but it has landed us in an extraordinary amount of complication. All we are trying to do is to ensure that people know what they are talking about when at various stages they talk about land. One would have thought that an easy thing to do, but upstairs and now we have found that it takes a remarkably large number of words. In this Clause we are seeking to strike out the existing Clause 10 and to put in another making a number of technical changes, and it also fulfils a couple of undertakings I gave in Committee on the question of records.
In subsection (2) of the new Clause we deal with the condition of land at the date of entry under an opencast site order. This does not apply to storage site orders because, in the light of changes made upstairs, they can be made only on land which is already under requisition. There is no point in making a record of the condition of that land now; all that was

gone into at the time when the land was originally requisitioned.
We make two changes as compared with the present Clause 10. We ensure that the record of condition shall cover all the holding and not just the land comprised in the order. That is because, as a result of Amendments made in Committee, some of the compensation provisions to protect the tenant in particular involve calculating values on certain assumptions which relate to the whole holding.
The second change is to provide for a record of the land in the case of a limited order under Clause 6, orders dealing with easements, and so on because, under Clause 30, there is provision for terminal compensation on easements and similar rights have to be taken into account at the date of entry. The condition of the rest of the holding does not come into this calculation In this new Clause it is only necessary to record the condition of the land actually comprised in the order.
Subsection (3) fulfils an undertaking of mine to provide for a record at the end of the Board's occupation of the


land. This is needed for the assessment of cost of works terminal compensation under Clause 21. I should point out that in the following subsection, which is entirely machinery, these records can only involve inspection. They do not give any right or call for boring or disturbance of the ground, or anything of that kind.
Subsection (5) fulfils another undertaking of mine, which I think was generally acceptable, that these records should go to everybody known to be concerned without putting them to the trouble of asking for them. We have made a slight change for the benefit of the Board. As we are now asking the Board to make records of rather more land, it should have 21 days instead of the original 14 in which to send out copies.
Subsection (8) makes a slight change in the Arbitration Act, 1950. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) will probably be interested in the change, and I think he will consider it a sensible one. I am advised that where matters go to arbitration under that Act, if any one of the persons concerned did not answer the Board's letter it would involve an expensive and complicated procedure to get an arbitrator appointed. We have made what seems to be a sensible provision, namely, that the person concerned in agreeing to the arbitrator should be the person who served the notice of objection on which there is to be arbitration. That will simplify, speed up and cheapen the procedure.
The short intention of the Clause is to ensure as speedily, easily and cheaply as possible that everybody concerned gets a record of the condition of the land at all material dates.

Mr. Champion: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there are here a lot of words to express a couple of fairly simple ideas. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the words are necessary.
I rise merely to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having so scrupulously and carefully given thought to what was said in the Standing Committee and for having carried out completely the promises which he gave, particularly the promise in this case which I regard as of some importance. The provision that

the tenant affected should have a copy of the record without having to fetch it or to serve a notice upon the Board requiring it to send it to him is a simplification which will be welcomed by every tenant farmer concerned, for such a person probably would not be able to get legal advice easily or even cheaply.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 29, to leave out "send" and to insert:
serve a notice exhibiting".
I hope that we may be able to consider, at the same time, the next four Amendments, in line 31, to leave out "to" and to insert "on"; in line 31, to leave out "sent" and to insert "served"; in line 33, to leave out "sent to" and to insert "served on"; and in line 34, after "notice", to insert "of objection" as they all go together.
The object of the Amendments is to make more formal the procedure for sending a copy of the record to every person who is known to the Coal Board to be a person directly concerned. The Bill as originally drafted provided that anyone who wanted a copy of the record had to write and ask the Board for it. In response to a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), the Government have now accepted that the better course is to make it the other way round and put the responsibility on the Board to send a copy of the record to every person who, as far as it knows, is a person directly concerned.
The Clause says:
… the Board … shall … send a copy of the record …
The first Amendment requires the Board to
… serve a notice exhibiting …
a copy. The reason is that if the phrase "serve a notice" is used it will import the provisions of the Ninth Schedule, which lays down in a well recognised form for lawyers—such words appear in many Acts—a definite procedure for serving a notice.
Difficulties may often arise. The Board may have a last known address of a person which may not be that


person's current address. If we merely say that a notice must be sent, the person concerned may object that it was never sent to him because it was not sent to the address where he was now living. The Ninth Schedule provides for all that sort of thing. It provides for the way in which a notice shall be sent to a company—at its registered address or principal office.
A case might arise where the Board believed that there was an interested party but did not know what his name was. It is difficult in those circumstances to see how the notice can be sent. However, the Ninth Schedule provides for that contingency by saying that the Board can address it to the person either by name or by the description "the owner or the occupier" and then send it in the prescribed manner to one of the addresses which will satisfy the requirements for the service of the document.
That is the sort of thing that we have in mind in making our suggestion. We feel that it will avoid doubt and the possibility of future litigation if the notice is made a formal one, in the same way as a person who objects has to serve a notice of objection on the Board. The word "notice" imports all these formal provisions, whereas mere "send" does not.

Sir I. Horobin: When I looked at the Amendments I was not clear what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and his hon. Friends. I was a little afraid that the intention might be that the notice should simply draw attention to the fact that persons concerned could set to work to obtain the notices. That would have been unacceptable. I am very glad that that is not the case.
Speaking offhand, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a useful point here. If he is prepared not to press his Amendments now, I should like to consult my advisers and, if necessary, move an Amendment in another place. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot accept his Amendments as they stand, because this is a very technical matter, but I think that there is something in what he said.

Mr. MacDermot: These are purely formal and technical points. In view of the Minister's assurance, for which I

thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO TELEGRAPHIC LINES.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act, none of the rights or powers conferred thereby or by any order made thereunder shall authorise any interference with any telegraphic line belonging to or used by the Postmaster General, or include any right or power to require such a line to be altered.

(2) Where an authorisation has been granted under section one of this Act, and, for the purpose of enabling any authorised operations to be carried out, the Board require an alteration to be made in any telegraphic line of the Postmaster General, the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (8) of section seven of the Telegraph Act, 1878 (which provides for the alteration of such telegraphic lines in the case of work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament), shall apply as if the authorised operations were (within the meaning of that section) work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament, if apart from this subsection those operations would not be taken to be work so proposed to be done.

(3) Where in pursuance of an order made under section three of the Acquisition of Land Act, as applied by section fourteen of this Act, a public right of way is suspended, and, immediately before the date on which that order became operative, there was under, in, upon, over, along or across the way to which the order relates a telegraphic line belonging to or used by the Postmaster General, the Postmaster General shall have the same powers in respect of that line as if the order had not become operative:
Provided that this subsection shall have effect without prejudice to the provisions of the last preceding subsection.

(4) In this section "telegraphic line" and "alter" have the same meanings as in the Telegraph Act, 1878.

(5) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to the Acquisition of Land Act there shall be substituted a reference to the Scottish Acquisition of Land Act.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I do not think the Clause will detain the House long. It is for the comparatively unimportant purpose of preventing many telephone and telegraph lines from being pulled down. We have discovered that, in the process of applying this novel C.R.O. procedure to the already complicated land law of England, there may


be cases where telegraph and telephone lines are going along land which is a public right of way which may be affected by the provisions of the Bill, and if the right of way were affected the Postmaster-General would no longer have any right to have his poles there.
6.0 p.m.
It may well be, of course, that they will have to be removed, but there are special provisions, as I am sure everyone will agree there should be, for protecting him in that matter. This Clause is modelled on Section 117 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and all it does is to ensure that, where the Postmaster-General's lines are in this way affected, special machinery is laid down—and I need not detain the House to describe it—to make sure that proper notice is given to him, and proper protection, before his lines are interfered with.

Mr. Robens: We have no objection to this Clause, but I must say that it is very new; new, in the sense that it was never referred to during the passage of the Bill through Standing Committee, nor was there any remote reference to it in the Bill itself. I do not complain about that. In the confused state of the Government's mind, with all the legislation they are churning out—and so overworking the Parliamentary draftsmen—small matters like telegraph poles do get mislaid and forgotten.
The main point here is something which was discussed in Standing Committee; that a reference to any particular Minister meant a reference to all the other Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the attempts made by some of my hon. Friends always to include the Minister of Agriculture, when reference was made to the Minister of Power, to make absolutely certain that the Minister of Power would consult the Minister of Agriculture on matters referring to opencast workings. We finally agreed, though not easily, that the collective responsibility of Ministers was proved, and that, therefore, there was only the necessity to mention the Minister of Power in the Bill and that that would automatically include all other Ministers who would be affected.
Having persuaded us to that effect, with all the ability that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary could command, we now have a Bill in which they have forgotten the Postmaster-General.

All I want to know is whether or not they will forget the Minister of Agriculture when the Bill is passed. How does it come about that the Postmaster-General, with all his telegraph poles, cables and the like—not small things to be put on one side and overlooked, but bulky things—was completely forgotten—indeed, if someone had not thought of it at the last moment, probably all telephonic communication in various parts of the country would have come to an end—and when it was impressed on us during the Committee stage to such an extent that we withdrew all our Amendments relating to the Minister of Agriculture on the assurance that the Minister of Power would consult all Ministers?
We accept the Clause, but on this occasion we would like a word from the Paymaster-General as to whether we can now be assured that we can permit the Bill to go through without putting down a lot of Amendments in another place so as to include all the Ministers whom we want to include in joint consultation; whether we can from now on accept what was put to us with such force, that if we consult one Minister of the Crown we are consulting them all, where they have an interest. If so, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Minister who hawks telegraph poles around the country was forgotten?

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I will gladly respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation and apologise for the unfortunate omission of this provision from the Bill. I will not bandy words with him on this issue, but we certainly do apologise. It is clear that some provision must be made in relation to these telegraph posts, which are the property of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. I do not think that the general principle of collective Government responsibility is in any way impaired by the new Clause, or by the fact that we did not put in this particular provision at an earlier stage.
I can cheerfully assure the right hon. Gentleman that, to the best of my knowledge and advice, the fact that this Clause is to be included does not invalidate anything said earlier about Ministerial responsibility by myself or my colleagues during the Committee stage.

Mr. Ede: Did the Postmaster-General bring this to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or did that Department bring the position of the Postmaster-General to the notice of the Postmaster-General?

Mr. Maudling: That sounds rather like the famous question about the chicken and the egg, to which I do not know of an answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(AUTHORISATION OF OPENCAST WORKING OF COAL.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out
Subject to the provisions of this Act".
I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we could take, at the same time, the Amendment in page 1, line 13.
The effect of these Amendments is to carry out an undertaking I gave to the Standing Committee on 25th February last to make clear a point raised by the Opposition to the effect that, in the Bill as it then stood, it was not clear that the Board could carry on on existing sites without authorisation. I said that we would make it quite clear that authorisation was not needed under Clause 1 for sites being worked at the time the Bill came into operation.
The Amendments do this by replacing the general words
Subject to the provisions of this Act".
at the beginning of Clause 1 (1) by specific references to Clauses 42 and 44. Clause 42 deals with sites that are being worked under licence by private operators, and Clause 44 deals with the transitional provisions to cover the point of sites being worked at the time when this Bill comes into force.
I think, therefore, that these Amendments deal with the point raised by the Opposition and clarify what was, I admit, a little doubtful, perhaps, in the original draft.

Mr. Robens: I rise only to welcome these proposals and to say that they emanated from a contribution made by Mr. Ronald Williams, whose sudden

death we so much deplore and whom we still miss so very much.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 13, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of section forty-two of this Act and to the transitional provisions having effect by virtue of section forty-four of this Act.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 3.—(COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, at the end to insert:
(7) The Lands Clauses Acts shall not apply to the compulsory acquisition of rights by virtue of a compulsory rights order, or to the taking or retention of possession of land in the exercise of such rights.
This is a drafting Amendment, designed to make it clear that the Lands Clauses Acts do not apply to the taking of land by means of compulsory rights orders under this Bill. This removes any possibility of argument that compensation on compulsory rights orders might be payable under the Lands Clauses Acts and not under the Bill. I understand that a specific provision is needed, because the opening words of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are:
This Act shall apply to every undertaking authorised by any Act which shall hereafter be passed, and which shall authorise the purchase or taking of lands for such undertakings, and this Act shall be incorporated with such Act.
There might otherwise be some doubt as to whether the compensation on compulsory rights orders should be payable under the Lands Clauses Act. Clearly, the compensation should be governed by the Bill, and this is a drafting Amendment for the avoidance of doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(EFFECT OF OPENCAST SITE ORDERS.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Notice Paper:

In page 5, line 42, leave out:
a compulsory rights order, being".

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker did not select that Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: Then I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Maudling: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I, too, was unaware of that. Had the Amendment been called I would have said that we were accepting it in principle, and were considering it before another stage of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not call it, but it is not complete without a consequential Amendment.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to insert "fifty-six".
This Amendment gives effect to the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking in Committee on 20th March, and it increases the period of notice of entry under a compulsory rights order from 28 to 56 days.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, at the end to insert: "of any description".
This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the Board's rights to occupy land under a production site order are those which they would have had if they had acquired a freehold interest in that land with vacant possession and free from encumbrances of any description. It is once again a drafting Amendment for more certainty.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out subsections (6) and (7).
This Amendment is consequential on new Clause 3. Subsections (4) and (6) of the new Clause deal with the points covered by the subsections which are to be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

"part of the land adjacent to such a building which, at that time, is occupied together with the whole or part of that building and either—


(a) is within fifty yards from a part of that building, or


(b) not being land falling within the preceding paragraph, and not being agricultural land, forms part of a garden, yard, court or forecourt belonging to that building".

This Amendment fulfils an undertaking of mine to amend the proviso to Clause 7 (1) so as to prevent the Board working coal right up to one side of a house. This Amendment should be generally acceptable. It was felt that the original draft of the Bill was quite insufficient to protect the position of occupiers.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 39, leave out "provisions of section six" and insert: "following provisions".—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 5.—(EFFECT OF STORAGE SITE ORDERS.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, to leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders.) The points dealt with by the subsections now proposed to be omitted are covered by subsections (4) and (6) of the new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 32, leave out "provisions of section six" and insert "following provisions".—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 6.—(LIMITED COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 29, leave out from first "of" to "shall" in line 31 and insert:
subsection (4) of section (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders) of this Act".

In line 32, after "land", insert "not".

In line 34, after "right", insert "not".—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 7.—(PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM INCLUSION IN COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 36, at end insert:
a building whereof the whole or any part is".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out from "any" to the end of line 46 and to insert:

This is an important Amendment to which I attach a great deal of importance. A great deal of trouble is caused because of the various interpretations which the courts have put upon the word "gardens". It was found very difficult to draft something which would protect roughly a house and garden, without


bringing in a whole lot of things which were not in the ordinary sense of the word—market gardens and so on, which were of quite a different type.

6.15 p.m.

Under this Amendment, in the first place we ensure that the Board cannot work right up to the side of a house, and in the second part of it we go even further in protecting the amenities of certain valuable large gardens round houses which are sometimes of great architectural importance. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is unfortunately not in his place at the moment, but on several occasions he has referred to Winstanley Hall, for instance. There are several houses of that type where there are large gardens which it will be generally agreed should not be spoiled. But they do not go in all directions equally. Therefore, it is necessary to try to provide a protection for them in addition to the radius, which prevents one from exceeding any point nearer than fifty yards. This is a valuable addition to the protection of amenities.

Mr. Robens: Mr. Speaker, do you at this stage propose to take the Amendments to this proposed Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Robens: If so, would it not be desirable and to everybody's convenience if we took them all at the same time?

Mr. Speaker: We have first got to agree to leave out the words which the Minister proposed to leave out in his proposed Amendment, and then there will be the Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted." On that I intended to call the first Amendment to this proposed Amendment.
In answer to the second question of the right hon. Gentleman, it appeared to me that the first Amendment, in line 2, leave out from "time" to "either" in line 3, and the third Amendment in line 5, after "paragraph", insert:
is occupied together with the whole or part of that building
went together. If the right hon. Gentleman can discuss all the Amendments together, I shall be very happy about it.

Mr. Robens: With respect, I think you are quite right, Mr. Speaker, in saying

that they are two separate points, but the whole concerns one argument, as I think my hon. Friends and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. It might be to the convenience of the House if it were possible to have a general discussion on all these Amendments after which the Question could be put formally.

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to include the Amendment in line 6, to leave out "garden"?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We had first better agree to leave out the words which the Minister has asked shall be left out.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Champion: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out from "time" to "either" in line 4.
I understand that discussion is to take place on all the Amendments to this proposed Amendment, including those in line 5, to leave out from beginning to second "not", and in the same line to leave out:
and not being agricultural land".
However, I shall confine my remarks to the Amendments in my name, namely, that which I am moving and the Amendment in line 5, after "paragraph", to insert:
is occupied together with the whole or part of that building".
In moving his Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that it was designed to prevent land from being included in a compulsory rights order up to the edge of a dwelling which was occupied. I am not sure about this. So far as I can see, what this Amendment actually does is to exclude from a compulsory rights order dwelling-houses and land occupied by the occupier of a house up to a distance of 50 yards from the house.
I am bound to agree that that Amendment is wholly reasonable. It is an Amendment that it is right should be made. But it seems to me to be quite unreasonable in so far as it provides no


protection at all for an occupier of a dwelling-house who does not occupy the land surrounding his house together with the house. I hope that I have made that point clear. It is possible to have circumstances in which land running right up to the edge of a dwelling is not in the occupation of the occupier of the dwelling-house itself.
In the circumstances, it seems to me that where the land is in a different ownership the compulsory rights order could comprise land to the very walls of the house and the occupier of the dwelling-house would have only the safeguards contained in the Bill, that is to say, the right of support contained in the new Clause dealing with the general limitations of the effect of a compulsory rights order and, possibly, compensation for damage at common law.
It seems to me wholly reasonable that a man should be safeguarded up to 50 yards from his dwelling, but it seems also to be wholly right and reasonable that a man should be safeguarded even if the land which abuts his dwelling is not owned by him. I imagine that this must be an oversight on the part of the Minister and that it can never be his intention that a compulsory rights order should be made in circumstances such as I have outlined. I hope that we shall have a favourable answer from the Minister. The matter must be of considerable importance everywhere where opencast mining goes on in built up areas, where, quite clearly, workings could come very near to dwelling houses.

Mr. Oliver: I support the Amendment moved my my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). I was rather in favour of the Minister's Amendment. I thought it did substantially meet the point raised in Committee and, to that extent, so far as an occupier of a house was concerned with land on which an order had been made, the Amendment fulfilled the Minister's promise. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, however, has revealed what seems to be an oversight. It may well be that neither he nor I are reading the Minister's Amendment quite correctly, but it is possible to construe it, I think, so that an occupier of a dwelling-house could have opencast mining brought right up to his door, and, because he did not

occupy or have an interest in the land, he would have no remedy.
The Amendment moved by the Minister provides a remedy for the person in occupation, but it provides no remedy for an unfortunate person who has no interest whatever in the land upon which opencast operations are continuing. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will say that we have misread his Amendment or, if we have not, that he will take the necessary steps to see that such a person is safeguarded from what would be an appalling nuisance.

Mr. MacDermot: I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for having put down his Amendment. It is a brave attempt to grapple with the difficult problem raised by an Amendment we moved in Standing Committee, namely, how to ensure that opencast coal workings do not come closer than a reasonable distance to a dwelling-house or buildings.
My hon. Friends have spoken particularly to the Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), which are directed to the point that the 50 yards limitation ought to be for the benefit of all, not only for the benefit of a person fortunate enough to own land within a 50 yard radius round his house.
I wish to address a few remarks to the other Amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have kindly allowed us to discuss at the same time. The first of these is in line 5, to leave out from the beginning to the second "not". It is purely related to a drafting point and is put down in order to probe the reason for the words in paragraph (b),
not being land falling within the preceding para".
It would appear that the intention behind those words is sufficiently covered by the short word "or" at the end of the previous line. If (a) and (b) are alternatives, I should have thought that the words we asked to be left out would be unnecessary.
The other two Amendments, in line 5, to leave out
and not being agricultural land
and in line 6, to leave out "garden", are of more substance. I gather from what the Minister has said in moving his Amendment that the words "not being


agricultural land" were probably introduced with particular reference to the word "garden"—in other words, to exclude extensive market gardens. If that is the intention, with respect, it is something with which I would entirely agree, but I wonder whether the Minister has sufficiently considered the effect of those words on the other words in the Amendment,
yard, court or forecourt belonging to that building".
I will take as an example a farmyard, perhaps a fairly extensive farmyard immediately adjacent to, and occupied with, the main farm buildings, but extending beyond the 50-yard radius. Surely, one would want the whole farmyard to be protected, but, if the words "not being agricultural land" are left in, it is not so protected. The same would apply to a court or forecourt. There may be buildings in a yard which are used for agricultural purposes. They should surely be protected just as much as a building used, let us say, for housing the farmer's Rolls-Bentley, or whatever his motor car may be. The garage for the tractor deserves just as much, if not more, protection. That is the object of our Amendment. It is to probe the Government's intention.
The Amendment to leave out "garden" was put down primarily for probing purposes so that we should know what was the intention behind the use of this word. The Minister has already said something about it. We can understand that certain ornamental gardens attached to big country houses are something which anyone would wish to see preserved. Most of them are thrown open on occasions to the public and add considerably to the amenities of the neighbourhood. Equally, however, there are sometimes very extensive gardens attached to houses, walled gardens and so on, which are not occupied for agricultural purposes, which have no architectural or amenity merit, but which are very extensive in area. There might be occasions when the protection of those gardens would operate unreasonably against the Board in preventing it from working seams of coal lying under them.
Perhaps it is a matter which could be dealt with by the elastic procedure of the Minister's directions, but we feel that, as drawn at the moment, the Amendment

in this respect is perhaps too wide, and in the other respects is too narrow.

Sir I. Horobin: I think that it would be convenient if I dealt with the last points first. There is clearly nothing substantial between us here, at any rate. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) said, the Amendments in this case are put down either to probe the intention behind the Government's Amendment or to raise possible points of drafting.
I should not like to express an opinion as to whether "agricultural land" would in its technical sense cover a yard or court, but that is a purely drafting point and we shall certainly look into it. I gather that in the light of what I have said already there is agreement that we should exclude gardens which are not the kind of amenity garden that we have in mind and which might extend over acres of raspberry fields, or something like that. Having done that, we are in agreement that we would wish to include amenity gardens even if they extend beyond 50 yards in a certain direction. I shall look into the purely drafting point and satisfy myself whether any change is needed.
6.30 p.m.
I am sorry to say that on the first and much more important point I am not able to satisfy the views that have been expressed, although I should like to very much. There is no question of oversight. The intention of the Amendment, which goes as far as we are able to go in this direction, is severely limited by the same principle that we had to discuss earlier, namely, that we must draw a distinction between persons who have an interest in the strict sense and those who have not. If the land concerned is land in which the owner of the house has no interest in that sense, then this is a risk which runs anyway.
If a person carries out opencast mining operations for minerals, for instance, he has no power to stop the nuisance. I must be careful here. I am not using the word "nuisance" in the strict legal sense. If two people occupy precisely the same kind of house and overlook precisely the same kind of opencast site, one may be affected by the Amendment and the other not, because of the principle to which we have had to adhere throughout the Bill, namely, that we are doing our best to


ensure that anybody who has a right over land which the Coal Board is working and is damnified by what the Coal Board is doing shall be compensated. We cannot give rights against the Coal Board which do not run against any other operator. If anybody else can get town planning permission to dig a quarry or build a cement works on the borders of a person's land he has no power to claim compensation. We are not giving any right to compensation against the Coal Board which does not exist against a cement company or whoever it may be.
All we are doing here—and it is as far as we feel we are able to go in a Bill of this kind—is to ensure that if damage is done to land over which a person has an interest in some way and that damnifies him on another part, although not the part taken, either compensation shall run or, as in this case, a person would be protected from it happening at all. The fears that have been expressed that some persons will not be protected by the Amendment are well founded. All we have been able to do is to ensure that where land is in the same occupation operations will not take place within 50 yards of the house, nor shall a garden in the ordinary sense of the word be destroyed in order to get the coal.
I am sorry that we have not been able to go further, but if we did we should breach a principle to which we have had to adhere throughout the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: I should like to press this matter a little further because it seems to me that this is a misapplication of the principles to which the Minister referred. We are not dealing with compensation. Going back 100 years or more, one can see a distinction between the compensation that a person who is the owner of land which is affected may get and the person who is not the owner. But here the simple point is that we have already decided and agreed that when the land surrounding a dwelling-house which belongs to the owner of that dwelling-house is taken, it is in all circumstances unreasonable to take land which is nearer than 50 yards to his house.
Why is it unreasonable? It is nothing to do with the fact that he is the owner of the land. It is unreasonable because it is recognised that the nature of these operations is so distasteful that it would

inflict a quite unfair hardship on the occupier of a house to have the land taken and have the operations brought any nearer to his house than 50 yards. If that principle is sound in respect of the man who owns both the land and the house, it is sound in respect of the man who does not own the land but who has a house within a 50 yards radius. His need to be protected is exactly the same. As the Parliamentary Secretary says, if one were dealing, not with the operations of the Coal Board, but with the operations of a person seeking to get planning permission to work a quarry, if he got his planning permission he would be entitled to go closer than 50 yards. But would that planning permission ever be granted? One very much doubts it, certainly not if it would produce the kind of unpleasantness that we all know is produced by opencast coal working.
If the principle that a 50-yard limit should be the maximum for the owner is sound, then is not it sound and should not it be the maximum for everybody and should not the discretion of the Minister, when he confirms the order, be limited now by Parliament so that in no circumstances will authorisation be granted which will enable operations to take place closer to a house than 50 yards?

Sir I. Horobin: The illustration that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has given emphasises the distinction. These are all matters which are material for the Minister to consider when he is considering whether to give an authorisation. Indeed, as we have tried to point out—and the point cropped up over and over again in Committee—the analogy of this authorisation throughout is with town planning. It is a town planning matter. It technically carries deemed planning permission. As the hon. and learned Member has said, it is unlikely in certain circumstances that town planning permission would be given to carry on operations next door to a house if the nuisance in the general sense were very great. If that is so, precisely the same considerations would have to be in the forefront of the Minister's mind in considering whether he should give authorisation.
What we are concerned with is whether we should depart from general town planning principle, which is not to give wide, blanket refusals, but to consider each case on its merits, and whether


we should leave the Minister to consider ordinary planning considerations. But where the land is in the same occupation, then, for the reasons that we have heard over and over again, such as there being an interest and objection could have been raised, and so on, he is in a different position. Where he has no interest in the land he must rely on town planning considerations, and the town planning considerations come in when the Minister is considering whether to give an authorisation which carries deemed planning consent.

Mr. Ede: Will the Parliamentary Secretary go a little further and say that the Minister will in fact take into consideration the points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) when these cases come before him? If we can be assured of that, our points might be fairly met, but the Minister was very careful not to go quite so far as that. During the past few years we have been able to preserve both individuals and the public at large from many eye-sores that used to be tolerated in the past. That has been the effect of town and country planning, which was started during the war by a Minister to whom I do not intend to refer in your presence, Mr. Speaker.
One has been afraid in recent months that some of these feelings that we had during the war are now being whittled away. For a good part of the afternoon, the hon. Gentleman has kept repeating the mystic initials C.R.O. After some trouble, I found that in this connection they mean a compulsory rights order. In all my previous experience, they meant Criminal Record Office. I hope that the compulsory rights order will not be used to effect some criminal records in the matter of devastating the countryside unnecessarily. I hope that the Minister will be able to go just the little bit further that I have asked him to go.

Sir I. Horobin: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, I think I can satisfy him entirely. These matters would have to be very carefully considered by the Minister. Indeed, one can go further. As we now must have a public inquiry, as the inspector must refer to all these things and the Minister will give reasons why he does or does not consent to the compulsory rights

order, with or without amendment, there is no doubt whatever that in practice this kind of consideration would have to be very carefully considered.
We must, however, bear in mind the other side. Throughout the Bill, it has been a matter of balancing. The Coal Board is under an obligation to provide large quantities of coal and there are certain cases where substantial losses of coal might be involved. Therefore, a general blanket refusal of this kind to persons with no interest in the land would not seem to be proper. However, in considering the town planning balance of judgment, I should have thought it was quite certain that if a small amount of coal were at stake which could easily be avoided by remaining at a reasonable distance from a house of the kind in question, that would be a material consideration which would be bound to be present at the inquiry, bound to be referred to in the inspector's report and bound, therefore, to be considered by the Minister when giving or refusing his consent.

Mr. Ede: Would the man who, in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), is in what has been called the second house, have the right of hearing at the inquiry?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think he is a person who would have a right. Nevertheless, once an inquiry is ordered, it is, I am advised, unusual to refuse reasonable requests. In any case, the town planning authority would have a right. This is a town planning matter. The local authority would have a definite right to be there and certainly would be there. Therefore, in the first place, it would be for that authority to press the rights or wrongs from the town planning point of view upon the Minister and his inspector.

Mr. Oliver: Will the Parliamentary Secretary apply his mind to this? If it is a town planning matter and the town planning machinery is being employed, why specify the 50 yards in the Bill if the town planning authority would give the protection which the Minister suggests? The hon. Gentleman tells us that the town planning committee will consider all these things. Why include it in the Statute in respect of the occupier and leave the other


unfortunate man naked and exposed to all the vagaries of what might be decided? To put it another way, why protect the rich and neglect the poor?

Sir I. Horobin: I hope we do not get drawn into that argument. This is nothing to do with the rich or the poor. The rich man might be unprotected—it might be Wentworth Woodhouse or somewhere of that kind—whereas the poor man might have a council house and his few yards of occupied land might be protected. We do not want any red herrings of that kind.
6.45 p.m.
We keep coming back to this distinction. There are certain of these people whom we can protect rigidly upon the grounds that they have an interest in the land. Therefore, the compulsory powers of the Board are taking something from them compulsorily to which they could object, town planning entirely apart. That is the distinction. Town planning or no town planning, when a person has an interest in the land, if the Coal Board does not have compulsory powers he can say, "I will not let you come within 50 yards of my house"—[Interruption.]—or, possibly, 100 yards if that was preferred. It is quite reasonable, therefore, to come to some agreement as to what is a reasonable minimum and write it in the Bill.
The other cases, however, would have no such right. Anybody could have come up and done anything which was not an actionable nuisance right outside the window. Therefore, there must be the dependence solely on town planning protection, and that is what we do. That is the distinction. I confess that if one could have done it, I should have liked legally to protect everybody, but we have gone as far as we can.
In the Bill, we are ensuring a specific protection for those who have a legal interest in the land. Therefore, we feel, it should not be taken away from them. We are not, however, giving to persons a right which they would not otherwise have had and which they do not have against anybody else. We do not propose in the Bill to give them a right against the Coal Board that they do not have against any other legal developer.
Why should the Coal Board alone be put in a position of disadvantage which

is not shared by any other legal developer? That is our position. I do not say that it is an entirely happy one, but we are balancing one thing against the other and we have tried to draw the line as fairly as we can in the interests of amenity and in the interests of the Coal Board.

Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary has missed the whole point. He keeps insisting that this is only a matter of protecting, as far as is possible, the legal rights of the owner of the land. It was never discussed on that basis in Committee. This is an amenity point concerning the right of people to live as peacefully as they can despite the opencast coal operations which go on in their midst.
The whole of opencast coal operations take place in countryside which is also associated with council house development and dwellings. There is not a single hon. Member who represents a mining constituency where coal is found who has not come up against a case in which coal workings come right up against dwelling-houses. What we are seeking to do is to minimise as far as we can the inconvenience that opencast coal working brings about.
It is no use arguing that those responsible for town planning can ameliorate this inconvenience, because if the town planners had their way in any area where opencast coal operations take place, they would never agree to any opencast coal workings at all. No elected representatives who are councillors or aldermen, and who sit on county, borough or town planning authorities would dare to give permission for opencast coal operation to take place if they were completely free agents. The only reason why, at the moment, planning permission will be granted under the Bill is that compulsory powers can be applied.
Let us forget about town planning. Those of us who have sat on town planning committees know perfectly well that in normal circumstances, without compulsory powers, there is no town planning organisation anywhere which would give the right to do this opencast coal work. It is not, therefore, a legal matter at all. If the Parliamentary Secretary will cast his mind back to the Committee stage, he will remember that this emerged on an


Amendment put forward from this side which provided that houses should not be encroached upon within half an acre, or that a house should be left with at least half an acre of land. We explained, of course, that the half-acre could be entirely behind the house and that the workings could operate close up to the front door.
This is no myth. I have seen and heard hundreds of operations which have been conducted within 20 yards of the front door. Whether it can be done depends entirely on the strata. We said at that time that there should be at least 50 yards around the house in order to provide some reasonable amenity for the people who have to live for five years or longer in these conditions; and these conditions have to be seen to be believed. What the Parliamentary Secretary has said is that if one happens to own the land about which we are talking one can have the 50 yards, but that if one happens to live in a house on either side of that boundary the operating works can go on virtually up to the doorstep because there is no provision about the 50 yards
The Parliamentary Secretary said that we must leave it to the local planning authority, but he cannot say whether the local planning authority will, in fact, guarantee the 50 yards. He does not know. Surely, if it is right in common justice to say that, purely from the viewpoint of amenity—and this has nothing to do with damage, because the damage is done if one is within 50 yards; it is purely an amenity point—the owner of the land can, under the Bill, be protected, then the person living next door and on the border of that same land ought to have the same right in law.
It should not be left to the local planning authority to determine whether it should be 50 yards or not, because, as the Parliamentary Secretary now says, it is not the position even under the Bill that what is said at the inquiry or the evidence that the planning authority will put forward will decide the matter at all, but that it will be decided finally after a public inquiry is held about compulsory powers. If this country gets very short of coal, as it was a few years ago, then the compulsory powers of the Minister will override every other consideration, as, unfortunately, it must.
We are asking the Parliamentary Secretary to get away from this idea of legality, because it is not the legality of the matter with which we are concerned. We are concerned that opencast coal mining operations should proceed with the minimum loss of amenity to those people who have to live within these operational areas, some of which are gigantic.
We are asking the Government to give some relief and not confine the 50 yards to the owner of the land only, but extend it to those around the site, who ought to have the same consideration. That would not affect at all the views of the local planning authority on the matter, but at least the local planning authority would be unable to permit or to authorise digging operations within 50 yards of a dwelling house.
That is the simple point, it seems to me. It is a reasonable point, and if the Parliamentary Secretary would read again the report of the Committee stage of the Bill he would see some of his own words:
It is monstrous—and if we can avoid it, it should be avoided—to leave a house perched on a pinnacle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 20th March, 1958; c. 352.]
This had nothing to do with who owned the house. All that the hon. Gentleman said was that it was monstrous that a house should be left in that position.
I beg the Parliamentary Secretary not to go on pursuing this matter as if it were a legal one. It is not; it is an amenity matter. If it is right that the man who owns the land should be protected and that he should not have to rely on the local planning authority for his 50 yards, it is also right that anybody who lives in such a house should have the same sort of protection under the Bill. That is what we seek, and I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have gladly accepted it.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I should have thought that if, in the course of a few years, we found ourselves short of coal, we might be less concerned about amenities than we might be about the production of coal and the winning of coal from all possible sources. I have not taken part in the discussions on this Bill, either in the Standing Committee, of which I was not a member, or in the debates in this House today, but I was once Minister of Fuel and Power, and I had a great deal to do with opencast coal


operations. I recall the difficulties that beset the Ministry of Fuel and Power when we sought powers to proceed with opencast operations.
Some of my colleagues may recall the occasion when there was considerable controversy in the country because we sought to acquire for opencast coal operations land at Wentworth Woodhouse, when Earl Fitzwilliam, who was the owner at the time and may still be in possession of the mansion and the land adjoining, sought to prevent us. I go further. Some of my colleagues sought to prevent us on the grounds that we were interfering with amenity. Why? Because we were interfering with this mansion, the gardens and the land adjoining. We were proposing on that occasion to undertake opencast mining operations almost up to the windows of the mansion, because there was a need for the coal.
Conditions have changed since then, and it is extremely doubtful whether, at present or in the foreseeable future, we shall require to engage substantially in opencast coal mining operations. It may be that we shall provide ourselves with sufficient coal from deep-mined sources to enable us to carry on and in a few years to dispense entirely with opencast operations. I do not know; I cannot indulge in any crystal gazing.

Mr. Rupert Speir: Mr. Rupert Speir (Hexham) rose—

Mr. Shinwell: I do not speak often. The hon. Gentleman might interrupt the thread of my discourse. I am easily distracted, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. Indeed, I have almost forgotten the next sentence I was going to say, but I am not going to forget the one after that, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

Mr. Speir: Did the right hon. Gentleman yield to pressure?

Mr. Shinwell: What I do say is that all this is very disturbing. I do not understand anything on the legal side of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has said that this is not a legal matter, but since I came into the House I have heard a great deal of legal jargon, the intricacies and subtleties of which I fail completely to understand.
It may not be a legal matter, but I have heard opinions which it seems to me might adversely affect the Coal Board. I am bound to say that it gives me considerable surprise to find the Parliamentary Secretary actually defending the Board and some of my colleagues seemingly, I will not put it higher than that, seeking to deprive the Board of some of its powers. This seems to me to be upsetting the apple cart. It is a complete reversal of our position.
I also note this—and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not regard this as more than a mild digression—that recently there have been many criticisms of many kinds levelled at the Coal Board. Many indictments have been preferred against it, some of which may be substantially held, while others may be based on imagination or fiction. I would say to my colleagues that we have to be very careful not to allow too much criticism of the Coal Board, even by intellectuals on this side of the House.
7.0 p.m.
We must be extremely careful. The Board was our baby. Let us not forget that. While we must not allow it to become arbitrary in character, or possess arbitrary powers, we must nevertheless seek to protect it so far as we are able so long as it is necessary for it to engage in opencast coal operations. Let us not forget that there was a time when the Ministry of Fuel and Power was entirely responsible for these operations. That power was transferred to the Board, though not in my time. I should have preferred to keep it under the aegis of the Ministry, but that was what was done by others who perhaps had greater knowledge of this subject and were more highly intelligent than I can claim to be.
It seems to me that if we had a guarantee—perhaps we might get an even more definite guarantee and assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary after more mature consideration—that not only those who possess land in the neighbourhood, but those who have certain amenity rights in the neighbourhood, are protected through the town planning authorities I should have thought that we might be satisfied.
If this is a matter of penalising the Board by as much as a hair's breadth, no one will drag me into the Lobby in


support of the proposal. I want to make that clear. We had enough trouble when we were advocating the formation of the Board, and it has enough troubles on its plate at present. It must not be penalised in the matter of opencast coal operations and amenities more than is absolutely essential in the interests of the country. I want as much as anybody to see amenities preserved.
It should not be forgotten that if opencast coal operations proceed within 50 yards, ten yards or even five yards of someone's dwelling—this is the old trouble in connection with farm property—the Board has an obligation to restore the land. In the ten years since opencast coal operations began, in spite of all the criticisms and the pessimistic predictions about the effect on amenities, hardly a tract of land where opencast operations have taken place has not been restored completely and to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.
In those circumstances, we ought to be a little careful about the matter. I beg my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance which will satisfy us without seeming to penalise the Board.

Mr. Speir: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the occasion when there was a threat to destroy Wentworth Woodhouse in order to extract coal by opencast methods. He did not tell the House what the answer was to the pressure put upon him as Minister of Fuel and Power at that time. It is my belief that he yielded to the pressure.

Mr. Shinwell: I did not yield.

Mr. Speir: Yet the right hon. Gentleman now tells the House that we ought not to pay any attention to amenity matters and should not by even one hair's breadth limit the powers of the Board in respect of opencast mining.
If, when we were desperately short of fuel in the 'forties, we could pay attention to amenity, as I believe we did, and if, on another occasion when opencast operations were taking place on Town Moor, Newcastle-on-Tyne, it was thanks to the right hon. Gentleman that the work ceased at week-ends and night, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is the

person to come here and tell us that we should not have regard to amenities at a time when fuel is far more available than it was when he was in office.
Anyone who lives in the vicinity of opencast coal mining operations suffers untold misery and hardship, and we must remember that the operations take place not only at week-ends and during the day but all night as well. Everything possible should be done to safeguard the interests of those living in the neighbourhood. I hope that the Minister will undertake to look at the matter further and ascertain whether an Amendment could be tabled in another place.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made a very powerful and eloquent speech, but at the end of it I remained a little doubtful what it was about. At one time he seemed to be defending the Coal Board on the ground that it was his baby. It was a very legitimate baby, but it has grown up now and is perfectly capable of taking its place in the world and standing up to criticism and defending itself against unjustified criticism.
I do not regard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) as being any kind of an attack on the Board. He seemed to me to be making a very simple and narrow point. It had nothing to do with the Board and nothing to do with any question of lawyers, intellectuals, or anything of the kind. What he was saying was that since the Government apparently admit that if a man owns a house he ought to be protected in his enjoyment of it up to a perimeter of 50 yards, then for the same reason some protection ought to be afforded to a man who merely occupies the house without owning it. Are we to take it that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington would be in favour of protecting amenities within 50 yards for a landowner, but not for a tenant? That would be a strange rôle for my right hon. Friend.
I hope that nobody on this side of the House will be disturbed by the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, but will vote for the Amendment to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth was speaking, which seemed to be one of such elementary


justice that it is difficult to understand why the debate is continuing so long.

Sir I. Horobin: I do not wish to stand in the way of any other hon. Member who wishes to address himself to the Amendment, because much of what has been said in recent speeches had nothing whatever to do with it. I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is under the disadvantage of not having read the Amendment. It has nothing to do with ownership. It deals with occupation.

Mr. S. Silverman: I was talking about occupiers.

Sir I. Horobin: Then the hon. Memmight have mentioned occupation. He never dealt with it at all. He mentioned ownership throughout.
I am entirely in agreement with a great part of what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said. Indeed, I tried to make the same point. We have to consider how far in the Bill we can protect property, especially, and people's amenities. The position that we have taken up is that persons with an interest of occupation in both a house and land adjoining are in a different position from those who have no interest in the land concerned. Where they have that interest, where they occupy the house and occupy the land, we feel that it is possible to lay down special protection for them. Where they have no interest in the land, we feel that the National Coal Board should be in exactly the same position as any other legal developer.
If a man occupies a house and has no interest it the land adjoining, then he has no legal right to interfere with any development which has obtained either planning consent, or, as would be the case here, deemed planning consent. We cannot see why the Coal Board should be put in a position different from that of any other developer. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington was making, and that is precisely what lies behind the distinction which we are drawing.
As there were some red herrings about only protecting owners, I should make it quite clear that that is not in the least the point. There still seems to be some slight confusion about town planning. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)

appeared to be interpreting what I said and the meaning of our original Amendment as implying that the outcome must be dependent upon a separate decision of the town planning authority. That is not the case, and if I gave that impression I am very sorry.
What I tried to say, and what I think I did say, was that the protection that these people must have is a town planning protection. However, under the Bill, these powers of town planning are transferred to the Minister. It will be he who, taking account of the need for coal and the need for amenity, which may vary, will give the authorisation, a decision which in effect is a town planning decision and which, in any case, a local planning authority might have given, if it had been a cement factory which it was proposed to build near the house.
That is the point. It is not the case that the occupier of a house who has any interest in neighbouring land will be left to the mercies of a town planning decision. A town planning authority would not be in the same position as the Minister in drawing the balance fairly between the needs of the Coal Board and the need for amenities in the district. The position is that probably the man himself and certainly the local planning authority will have the right to appear and argue these issues at the public inquiry. The inspector will deal with it and the Minister will deal with it, and it may well be, and probably will be, that if only a small amount of coal is needed and there is no great demand for coal at that time the authorisation will not be given up to 20 yards, 50 yards or 100 yards, whatever the Minister decided on town planning considerations.
What we cannot accept is that the Coal Board should be in any different position from that of any other developer in this matter. It must be free to do these things as any other operator would be allowed to do them, if the planning authority so decided. If the planning authority would not give this permission, we are arguing about nothing, because the Board would not be allowed to do it in those cases.
We feel that the Coal Board should not be specially hindered in its statutory duty of trying to obtain coal. I cannot help the House any further, and if I have not persuaded hon. Members we must leave it at that. We have tried to draw a fair


and rational line between the needs of amenities and the need of the Board to fulfil its statutory duties, unhindered by handicaps which do not apply to other developers.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: My law is a little rusty, but it seems to me that the Minister has based his resistance to the Amendment on a fallacy, or at any rate on bad law. The Government have inserted the figure of 50 yards, and, provided that an occupier of a dwelling-house occupies the land around (it, the opencast mining cannot come nearer than 50 yards from the house, but if somebody else occupies the land opencast mining can come to his doorstep.
That means that the owner of Blagdon Hall, Lord Ridley, could not have opencast mining nearer than 50 yards from his house, whereas the occupant of a council house could have opencast mining on his doorstep. I have seen hundreds of houses perched on the edge of yawning chasms. Presumably, the Government have inserted the figure of 50 yards to keep opencast mining at arms' length from a dwelling house, provided that the occupant also occupies the land, because opencast mining is a very unpleasant operation. It is extremely noisy and continues day and night. It is extremely dirty, and the whole area is mucked up with mud in wet weather. It is also extremely dangerous.
Before I was privileged to become an hon. Member, I had occasion to pass an opencast mining site twice a day, and I have seen stones flung all over the place. It is extremely dangerous, which is presumably one of the reasons why the figure of 50 yards was included. In other words, it is a nuisance—although that may not be the strictly correct legal term. Being a nuisance, the distance of 50 yards to some extent abates the nuisance for the occupier of the house.
Throughout the last hour or so, the Minister has refused to accept our proposal, which provides a partial abatement of the nuisance to the occupier of the house who does not occupy the surrouding land. His resistance is wholly based on the argument that our proposal would breach an important principle of the law, that the Coal Board must be in the same

position as any other developer of land. I suggest that that is the wrong way to consider the matter. The Coal Board does not develop land in the same sense as someone who builds a house or factory develops land. In opencast mining, the Coal Board is carrying out a very unpleasant, nasty, dirty and dangerous operation and is in no sense developing the land—certainly not in the sense that the builder of a factory develops the land. On the Government's own case, opencast mining creates a nuisance, at least for the time being.
There are many examples in law where a nuisance can occur on land and where the owner of the adjoining land has an action against the person causing the nuisance. A person who wishes to abate nuisance need not be the occupier of the land where the nuisance occurs. There are many examples of that. The right to ancient lights is one where the offending building may be on someone else's land and where the nuisance is to the owner of the adjoining land. Another example is that of noxious smells, and there are several others. In basing his resistance to the Amendment on that argument, the Minister is arguing bad law and is basing himself on a fallacy.

Sir I. Horobin: Where there is a nuisance of the sort the hon. Member describes, all the rights remain to the offended party, so I do not see the relevance of the hon. Member's argument. If it is a nuisance, there is still the same legal remedy.

Mr. Short: That is a quibble. The mere fact that the Government have inserted 50 yards shows implicitly that they regard opencast mining as some sort of nuisance and are willing to concede partial abatement of the nuisance if the occupier of the house occupies the surrounding land. If that is the correct interpretation, surely it is only common justice that the occupier of any dwelling house, whether he occupies the surrounding land or not, should have the same right of partial abatement—

Mr. S. Silverman: The same protection.

Mr. Short: —the same protection by having these operations kept 50 yards from him. I add my plea to the others that the Minister should promise to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary has not risen to say whether he will give consideration to this, and I take it from the nodding of his head that he is not able to do so. You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow us to discuss five Amendments at the same

time. Therefore, as we wish to divide on this one, we will not move the others.

Question put, That the words proposed be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 153.

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Godber, J. B.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, R. L.


Arbuthnot, John
Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Armstrong, G. W.
Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Ashton, H.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Atkins, H. E.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Barber, Anthony
Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Barter, John
Grimond, J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Batsford, B. C. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Oakshott, H. D.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Gurden, Harold
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Page, R. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maidon)
Partridge, E.


Bidgood, J. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Peel, W. J.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)



Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Powell, J. Enoch


Black, C. W.
Hesketh, R. F.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Body, R. F.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Profumo, J. D.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ramsden, J. E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Redmayne, M.


Braine, B. R.
Hope, Lord John
Renton, D. L. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Roper, Sir Harold


Burden, F. F. A.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Campbell, Sir David
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Russell, R. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Sharples, R. C.


Cole, Norman
Hyde, Montgomery
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Speir, R. M.


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Storey, S.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keegan, D.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Dance, J. C. G.

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Leavey, J. A.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.



Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Wade, D. W.


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, S. J.
Wall, Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, Alan
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wood, Hon. R.


Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)



George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sir Gerald Wills and Mr. Bryan.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mathew, R.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pentland, N.


Albu, A. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Holman, P.
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefieid (Crewe)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reeves, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boardman, H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Boyd, T. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. F.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Skeffington, A. M.


Callaghan, L. J.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Champion, A. J.
McCann, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, W. D.
MacDermot, Niall
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
McLeavy, Frank
Stonehouse, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)



Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, G.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Dodds, N. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thornton, E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, F.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mikardo, Ian
Warby, W. N.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A
West, D. G.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wigg, George


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grey, C. F.
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.



Hannan, W.
Paton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, S.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, T. F.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, to leave out "and".
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we may also discuss the next Amendment, to line 16.
These Amendments are important. I hope that we shall now get back to common agreement and that the Amendments will be generally acceptable.
In the Bill as drafted, the C.R.O. may not relate to land covered by buildings, unless the conditions in the Minister's consent have provided for restoration and replacement. The Amendments propose to tighten that up by saying that the buildings must be restored before the

Board gives up occupation. That was inserted primarily in order to simplify the results of changes in compensation which dealt with tenant's improvements. The net result of this point was that the owner would have to pay in the first place and it was therefore very important to avoid putting the unfortunate owner in the position of having to find ready cash to a very large amount.
We propose to get over that difficulty by an Amendment which would ensure that all the work would be done before the Coal Board gave up occupation, leaving only comparatively small items for which the owner had, in the first place, to pay the tenant.
The Amendments have very considerable advantages for their own sake. I


think that in all parts of the House we shall be pleased that some of these restorations, where they apply to buildings, must be done at a much earlier date than would otherwise have been the case as the Bill was originally printed, and before the Coal Board gives up occupation. Instead of the owner being told, "You will in due course have your barn or pigsty restored," the buildings will, in fact, be there when he comes back into occupation. I hope that will be generally acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 16, at end insert:
and
(d) those conditions specified a time within which the restoration or replacement of the building was to be completed being a time not later than the end of the period specified in the order as the period for which the order is to have effect". —[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL, AND AS TO TIMBER, CROPS ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 9, leave out lines 40 to 44.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 10.—(RECORD OF CONDITION OF LAND COMPRISED IN OPENCAST SITE ORDER.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out Clause 10.
This Amendment is consequential upon a new Clause to which the Committee agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF CHATTELS FROM LAND COMPRISED IN COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDER.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 12, line 15, at the end to insert:
or belonging to a river board or other dainage authority and used by that authority for the purposes of their functions".
This is one of a series of Amendments to give effect to my undertaking in Committee to give the same protection to the apparatus of river boards and internal drainage boards as is given to statutory undertakers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(APPARATUS OF STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS AND OTHER BODIES.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 15, after "undertaking", insert:
and any reference to the appropriate Minister were a reference to the appropriate Minister as defined by this Act". —[Sir I. Horobin.]

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 21 and 22 and to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, the provisions of the said section twenty-five shall have effect in relation to land which is for the time being comprised in an authorisation under section one of this Act—

(a) subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of the preceding subsection, and
(b) as if any reference in those provisions to the person carrying on a statutory undertaking included a reference to a river board or other drainage authority, and, in relation to a river board or other drainage authority, any reference to the carrying on of the undertaking were a reference to the performance of the functions of the authority.

(3) Where any requirement is imposed by virtue of section twenty-five of the said Act of 1944 as applied by either of the preceding subsections, the provisions of sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of that Act (which relate to the powers, duties and obligations of statutory undertakers) and of the First and Fourth Schedules to that Act (which relate respectively to the procedure for dealing with objections under those sections and to the assessment of compensation) shall have effect in relation to that requirement (subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of this section, or, as the case may be, subject to those modifications and the further modifications specified in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection) as if it were a requirement imposed under the said section twenty-five as applied for the purposes of Part IV of the Act of 1947.

Sir I. Horobin: This Amendment, with those to which I have already referred, is necessary to give effect to my undertaking to protect river boards.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 24, leave out from "provisions" to the second "in" in line 25 and insert:
referred to in the preceding subsections apply in accordance with those subsections.

In line 40, after "1944", insert:
and to the First and Fourth Schedules to that Act.

In line 42, after "1945", insert:
and to the First and Fourth Schedules to that Act.

In line 43, leave out "the reference" and insert "references".

In line 43, after "1947" insert:
and to Part IV of that Act.

In line 44, leave out "a reference" and insert "respectively references".

In line 45, after "1947", insert:
and to Part III of that Act."—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 15.—(ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS FOR PURPOSES OF DRAINAGE OR WATER SUPPLY.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 33, leave out from the first "works" to the end of line 38, and insert:
and—

(a) any right to maintain drainage works or water pipes in pursuance of an order made by virtue of this section shall include the right to remove those works or pipes, whether for the purpose of replacing them by other drainage works or water pipes or otherwise, and
(b) any right to maintain drainage works on any land in pursuance of such an order shall, if the order so provides, include a right to discharge water from those works on to that land."—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 18.—(ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COMPENSATION.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 22, line 40, to leave out from "with" to the end of line 41 and to insert:
the next following subsection.
(4) Subsection (2) of the last preceding section shall apply for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section, so however that the appropriate circumstances referred to in the said subsection (2), in relation to any year for which annual value falls to be determined for the purposes of the last preceding subsection shall be taken to be the circumstances which would have existed, immediately before the beginning of that year, if—

(a) the compulsory rights order had not been made and the authorisation referred to in that order had not been granted and no application had been made for such an authorisation;
(b) the land constituting the remainder of the holding had been in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date, and had been available for letting with vacant possession;
(c) all other relevant factors had been as they actually were immediately before the beginning of that year".

The Amendment meets the point put to us by the National Farmers' Union. Hon. Members will recall that when we discussed the loss of amenity I pointed out that the annual value would take

into account damage done from annoyance such as we have been discussing earlier and therefore compensation would to a very great extent be paid for it.
That was correct, but the National Farmers' Union pointed out that what we gave with one hand we were in danger of taking away with the other, which is not uncommon I am afraid in Government Departments. Under Clause 18, it may well be that the rent, having been reduced as the result of the loss of amenity, will mean a corresponding increase in profits, so that the farmers will get less compensation. That is obviously absurd and was not intended. As I explained to the Committee, what we intended was that they should receive compensation to the extent to which the annual value of their holdings was diminished by the opencast operations.
The Amendment overcomes the difficulty by providing that when we calculate profit on the rest of the holding it must be assumed that the rent of the rest of the holding is calculated as though there were no opencast coal working going on. That simply gets over the absurdity that we give them compensation on the one hand and then say, "You have made bigger profits" and take it all back again on the other. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the common sense of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 42, leave out "the last preceding subsection" and insert:
subsection (3) of this section".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION BY REFERENCE TO THE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE HOLDING.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 26, line 15, at the end to insert:
in the open market by a willing seller".
The Amendment is put down to meat a point made in Committee by the Opposition. We were of the opinion that, as the Bill was drafted, the "value" would be the open market value. I undertook to look into the point, and on consideration of the matter with my legal advisers I took the view that there might be something in the Opposition point. It is worth while making the matter absolutely clear. There is nothing between us as to what


we want to do. We have put down the Amendment to remove all possible doubt whatever. I wish to thank the Minister for having adopted the point which we made. The Amendment wholly meets the point we had in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(TENANT'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS.)

Amendment made: In page 28, line 5, after "the", insert "settlement or".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 28, line 7, at the end to insert:
Provided that—

(a) any provisions of the Act of 1948 as to the giving of notice of intention to make a claim shall apply with the modification that the time for giving such a notice shall be any time not later than three months after the end of the period of occupation;
(b) subsection (3) of section seventy of that Act (which relates to the time for settling such claims) shall apply with the substitution, for the reference to four months from the termination of the tenancy, of a reference to five months from the end of the period of occupation.

This Amendment is a bit more complicated. It is, broadly speaking, for the protection of the tenant. Clause 23 (6) applies the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, about the making of claims by a tenant against his landlord for compensation on long-term improvements and the continuous adoption of a special system of farming.
There are two provisions of that Act with which we have to deal. Section 70 requires a tenant to make a claim in

>"or under that section as applied by section twenty-eight of this Act, shall accrue due on the date on which the contract to sell the property in question is made or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the date on which that contract was made".

This fulfils an undertaking I gave to move an Amendment at this stage to provide that compensation for loss on forced sales would accrue due on the date when the losses are incurred and not, as the Bill is drafted, on the date of the compulsory rights order. In fulfilling the undertaking we have run up against a small difficulty which will be relevant if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is moved as it would affect the date on which the losses are in fact incurred.

respect of long-term improvements within two months of the termination of the tenancy. Section 56 requires the tenant to make a claim in respect of the continuous adoption of a special system of farming within one month of the termination. The tenant cannot get on his land until the Board has got off the land and two months after it has got off the land is different from two months before it comes on to the land, when he has time to prepare his claim. Therefore we have extended the period during which he can make these claims and put it after—as it obviously must be—and not before the Coal Board gives up occupation. This is not a matter of principle, but of commonsense adaptation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 28, line 36, leave out "and fifty-six" and insert "fifty-six and seventy".

In page 28, line 40, leave out "and fifty-six" and insert "fifty-six and sixty-eight".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 30.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF EASEMENTS AND OTHER RIGHTS.)

Amendment made: In page 35, line 2, at end insert:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any easement or other right which consists of any such right as is mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders) of this Act.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 33.—(TIME WHEN COMPENSATION ACCRUES DUE.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 37, line 29, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 30, and to insert:

We have chosen the date on which the contract of sale is made as something definite. That is a matter which may be argued if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is called.

We have attempted to fulfil the undertaking which I gave to protect the occupier who suffers a loss on a forced sale by making the date on which it accrues due the date when it was incurred. It obviously is the proper date at which it can be determined.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out from the second "the" to "or" in line 4 and to insert "property in question is sold".
First, I thank the Minister again for having taken one of the points we raised in Committee and for putting forward this Amendment. The point involved is a small one. It concerns what is to be the date from which interest on compensation for loss by a forced sale should be payable. I think that is the only point of substance which is involved. As originally drawn in the Bill, it was to be payable as from the operative date. We pointed out that cases might occur where a forced sale might take place many months after the operative date. It did not seem right that the Board should pay interest before the loss was incurred. The Minister promised to submit an Amendment which would be equally effective, more obscure, but at least satisfactory to all concerned. Speaking for myself, I am convinced only that he has succeeded in fulfilling one-third of that three-fold promise, because it seems more obscure.
7.45 p.m.
The point is whether the interest should date from when the contract was made or when the property passes under the sale. The intention of our Amendment is that the interest should run from the date when the property passes. I will seek to illustrate by an example. Imagine a farmer owning a combine harvester and, as we are told is likely to be the case, the Board enters into possession at the end of, or immediately after, the harvest season. In those circumstances, the farmer would probably arrange to dispose of his combine harvester at or about the date of entry, at the end of the harvest.
He may have made a contract to dispose of it before the harvest began. In the meantime, he will not only have used the combine harvester to bring in his own harvest, but in all probability he will have hired it out, as farmers often do,

to other farmers at high rates in order to help gather their harvest. If the interest is to date from the date of the contract he would be getting double compensation, or compensation for a loss he had not suffered. We feel, therefore, that as a matter of justice the right time from which the compensation should date is when the loss is actually incurred, when the property passes under the contract.
I gather from the Minister's words a few moments ago that there may be certain drafting difficulties about this. In framing our Amendment it was our intention to follow the ordinary principle of the Sale of Goods Act which, I think I am right in saying, is that a contract of sale becomes a sale at the time when the property passes. The words which we use are
the date on which the property in question is sold
and "the date of the sale". We intend that to mean the time of the passing of the property.
If the point which we have made is taken, I shall be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment for the Government to rephrase it in words which they think more satisfactory.

Mr. Robens: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir I. Horobin: I think that the most useful thing which I can say is that I understand that there is little, if anything, of substance between us. I was advised that there was a doubt in certain cases when the date of the sale would be. We wanted something specific. The contract must be dated, which disposes of that point. Without giving any undertaking, perhaps we could look at this point again and, if it is thought desirable to make a change, it can be made in another place.

Mr. MacDermot: We shall be quite content to leave the matter in that way, for the Government to look at it again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 36.—(ENTRY ON LAND.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 39, line 27, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:

(a) for any purpose in connection with, or preparatory to, an application for an authorisation under section one of this Act or the making or confirmation of any order under Part I of this Act; or
(b) (where an authorisation under section one of this Act has been granted) for any purpose in connection with, or preparatory to, the carrying out of any authorised operations or the performance of any functions under Part I of this Act, not being a purpose for which a right of entry is exercisable apart from this paragraph; or.

This Amendment is necessary because the purposes for which the Board is empowered to enter land under Clause 36 (3) are not held to cover all the purposes for which it may, in fact, need to exercise that power if the Bill is passed. I can give one or two examples of things which are not covered. They include the conduct of informal negotiations with local authorities, the preparation of maps and plans which have to accompany the application for authorisation and the recording of the condition of the land. The Bill as at present drafted does not cover those purposes.
The Amendment is of fairly general character. We considered for some time whether it was possible to specify all these various purposes, but we found it impossible, in practice, to do so and we thought it better to draw up this more general Amendment. The list would have been fairly long and there might have been a danger of omitting some important points.
The Coal Board has, however, given the Government an assurance that it will be very careful in its use of these powers and will always try to make entry by agreement with the owners and occupiers before resorting to compulsory powers. When the Board enters land under this Clause it is only for the purpose of survey; it is not allowed to take borings or to sink trial pits. For that the Board has to have the direction of the Minister under Clause 36 (1).
If by any chance the Board causes damage or disturbance it will be liable to pay compensation under Clause 36 (7). This extension of the purposes—it is not an extension of the power—is necessary to carry out the procedure of the Bill, and in the light of what I have said I

hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 39, line 38, leave out from "with" to "this" in line 40 and insert
any of the provisions of the First, Second or Ninth Schedule to".—[Mr. Maudling.]

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in line 45 after "thereon" to insert:
or while remaining thereon".
This Amendment carries out an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary on the question of the authorisation of people to enter on land and of their producing evidence of their authority. The Bill as drafted provides only that a man should produce his evidence of authority on entry, and once he is on the land he cannot be asked under the Bill to produce his authority. It was pointed out in Standing Committee that this was inadequate.
Under the Amendment a man who enters on land and remains on it will have to produce his evidence of authority if challenged at any time. I suppose that it introduces a certain risk that people may constantly be asking for evidence of authority, but, in practice, this risk is very remote. This is a proper protection for the citizen, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 40, line 1, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to insert "forty-two".
This, again, is put down as the result of an undertaking given by my hon. Friend that he would consider whether local planning authorities should be given more than 28 days' notice of prospecting projects in their area so that they would have adequate time to decide whether to issue a direction under the town and country planning general development order. That undertaking affects primarily the order amending the general development order which the Minister of Housing and Local Government is now preparing. To be consistent, however, it seems desirable to provide in the Clause that the notice of entry for the owners and occupiers of land which is entered for prospecting under compulsory powers should also be increased to 42 days, and this is done by the Amendment.
During the discussions in Standing Committee my hon. Friend undertook to ask the Coal Board for a specific assurance that it was the Board's intention to make administrative arrangements to notify other local authorities of prospecting projects. I can inform the House that the Coal Board has told us that it is willing to notify all local authorities, except parish councils, in whose areas this prospecting will take place, at the same time as it gives its formal notification to the local planning authority under the general development order. That, again, meets wishes expressed in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 40, line 6, leave out from "purpose" to end of line 7 and insert:
of affixing on land any notice in accordance with any of the provisions of the First, Second or Ninth Schedule to this Act". —[Mr. Maudling.]

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 40, line 11, after "therein" to insert "(a)".
This Amendment should be taken with the following Amendment, in line 14. Together, they fulfil another undertaking given by my hon. Friend to the effect that the Board cannot enter on to land owned by statutory undertakers for opencast prospecting if those undertakers object, except with the authority of the appropriate Minister. This point was put to us in Standing Committee and we thought that it should be met. We feel that it has been fully met by these two Amendments.

Mr. MacDermot: The acceptance of this Amendment by the Government has, I understand, given great satisfaction to the undertakers, who were most concerned and who had approached us in the first place—in particular, I think, the water authorities. Once again, I should like to thank the Government for having taken the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 40, line 14, at end insert:
and
(b) if the land in question is held by the persons carrying on a statutory undertaking, or a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking, or is held by a river board or other drainage authority, and those persons or that authority object to the proposed operations on the ground that the

carrying out thereof would be seriously detrimental to the carrying on of their undertaking, or, in the case of a river board or other drainage authority, to the performance of their functions, the operation's shall not be carried out except with the consent of the appropriate Minister".

In line 30, at end insert:
(10) Any reference in this section to Pant I of this Act, or to the First or Second Schedule thereto, includes a reference to the provisions of any enactment as applied by the said Part I, or by that Schedule, as the case may be.

In line 31, leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 37.—(CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION PAYABLE BY BOARD.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 41, line 16, to insert:
or under section (Record of condition of land) of this Act".
Though this is a small Amendment it has a substantial effect. It provides that disputes about payment by the Board for professional fees incurred by a person having a direct concern in the record of conditions shall be referred to the Lands Tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 41, line 18, at the end to insert:
or
(c) as to the amount of the quarterly payments payable in accordance with subsection (2) of section thirty-three of this Act in respect of any such compensation as is mentioned in that subsection".
This Amendment, again, is tabled in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Standing Committee. In this case, the undertaking was to amend the Bill so as to make it quite clear that disputes about the reasonableness of the quarterly advance payment of annual compensation which the Board is required to make and under Clause 33 (2, a), can be referred to the Lands Tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.—

Clause 40.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MORTGAGED LAND AND OTHER SPECIAL CASES.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, in page 43, line 27, to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) for references to a mortgage, to a mortgagor and to a mortgagee there shall be


substituted respectively references to a heritable security, to a debtor in a heritable security and to a heritable creditor;
(b) for references to the first mortgagee there shall be substituted references to that heritable creditor whose security has priority over any other heritable securities secured on the same interest; and
(c) for any reference to the application of a sum as if it were proceeds of sale there shall be substituted a reference to the application of a sum as if it were the price realised on the sale by a heritable creditor of land subject to a heritable security.

This is the first of a number of Scottish Amendments with which I do not think the House need be unduly delayed in considering. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House were Ito mention that the Amendments in page 51, line 45, and in page 52, lines 1, 5, 14 and 18 are all consequential, and perhaps I may be permitted to move them formally when we come to them.
The Amendment now before the House is intended, really, to tidy up the Clause. A heritable creditor in possession is dealt with under Clause 40 (5), and a heritable creditor not in possession is dealt with in Clause 48 (6), and by the artifice of the draftsman we have now brought them both into Clause 40 (5). As a result, the party interested will be able to receive compensation direct from the Coal Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41.—(CROWN LAND.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 44, line 10 at the end to insert:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the validity or operation of an order, or the exercise of any power, as against any person having, in or over the land in question, any interest or right other than a Crown or Duchy interest.
Under Clause 41 (2), compulsory powers cannot be used against land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest except with the consent of the appropriate Government authority. It has occurred to us that the case may occur where there is a Crown interest in land comprised in a compulsory rights order, and an interest of which the Board was unaware. It does not seem reasonable that this fortuitous circumstance should enable the owner of some private interest to claim that a compulsory rights order is not valid against him because it can be proved that the appropriate Crown authority has not consented. This new proviso prevents such a private owner of land from doing

that, and I therefore think that this is a reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Speir: Perhaps the Paymaster-General could say a word about the effect of this Amendment on dedicated woodlands. I understand that they will be covered by this and the next Amendment. Dedicated land is land which the owner has covenanted with the Forestry Commission not to use for any other purpose except that of growing timber. I understand that the Bill does not exempt dedicated woodlands from a C.R.O., but that it can be made subject to a C.R.O. provided that the Forestry Commission agree to such procedure.
It seems to me that the position might arise in which the owner who has dedicated his woodlands would be opposed to the making of a C.R.O., whereas the Ministry of Agriculture, acting for the Forestry Commission, might agree to a C.R.O. I wonder who would have the final say in such a situation?

Mr. Maudling: I think that that point will probably arise more conveniently on the next Amendment, when I shall be glad to answer it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 44, line 43, at the end to insert:
(5) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply in relation to land which is subject to a right restrictive of the use thereof, being a right the benefit of which is annexed to land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest, or (not being so annexed) belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, or belongs to a government department, or is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department, as those provisions apply in relation to land in which there is a Crown or Duchy interest:
Provided that those provisions shall so apply with the necessary modifications, and, in particular, as if the proviso to subsection (1) of this section were omitted, and, in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the last preceding subsection, any reference to land belonging as therein mentioned were a reference to a right the benefit of which belongs, or is annexed to land belonging, as therein mentioned.
I can now deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), on the question of forestry dedication covenants. There was some discussion on this in Standing Committee, when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that forestry dedication covenants gave the grant of an interest in


the land and that, therefore, under Clause 41, a compulsory rights order could not be made on land subject to a covenant, except with the consent of the Forestry Commission.
Since my hon. Friend was advised to that effect, we have given some further consideration to the subject, and further learned advice indicates that there is some doubt about it; that while forestry dedication covenants give the Forestry Commission a restrictive right over land, they do not necessarily give it an interest in the land. It is not clear from Clause 41 as it stands whether that prevents the Board from over-riding restrictive rights held by the Crown, if those rights do not constitute an interest.
It is obviously undesirable that, quite apart from the rights of private owners, the Board should be able to over-ride the restrictive rights of the Crown, so that the effect of the Amendment is to extend Clause 41 to cover restrictive rights over, as well as interests in land. This, of course, would mean—and this is the answer to my hon. Friend—that a compulsory rights order could not be made against land over which the Crown has a restrictive right, except with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority. In the case of forestry dedication covenants, this would be the Forestry Commission. The effect of the Amendment would be that the Forestry Commission would be in a position to say "No", but not the owner of the dedicated woodlands.
That was the position under the Bill as it was, and the effect of the Amendment is not to change that substantive position but to clear up the legal point, over the definition of which some doubt has arisen. The effect is really to make the position as we actually understood it to be when the Bill was passing through Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45.—(PROVISIONS AS TO REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)

Mr. Neal: I beg to move, in page 46, line 11, at the end to insert:
(a) in the case of an opencast site order where the Minister is satisfied that

(i) works of restoration have been in progress for not less than five years and have been carried out without unreasonable delay, and

(ii) substantial works remain to be carried out in order to secure the restoration of land comprised in the order;

this subsection shall not prevent the extension of that period for a further period not exceeding three years.
I want to express the willingness of the Opposition to facilitate business. It would be quite easy for us to have a protracted discussion on this subject, but I will move the Amendment as briefly as is consistent with clearness.
It should not be difficult to convince the Minister that the period for restoration foreshadowed in this Clause will not always be adequate to satisfy the farmer or the agricultural experts that adequate restoration has been made. It would be easy for my colleagues and I to draw upon our technical and personal experience in these matters to prove that it is impossible to say that five years is enough for any known piece of land to settle after extraction.
In the different opencast sites, different thicknesses of seams are being extracted, and different kinds of strata are being met. The result is that the amount of restoration is bound to be varied in the different places, and what we are asking is that the Minister will, where it is found necessary, extend this period. We hope that the Minister will be as amenable as he has been previously and will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Maudling: I would be very glad if I could accept this Amendment, phrased and put forward in such moderate terms, but I shall have to advise the House not to accept it, and I will explain my reasons for doing so.
This involves extending the period over which compulsory powers may operate, and it is the Government's belief that it is important to keep the time during which compulsory powers operate as short as possible. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in Standing Committee, gave an undertaking in careful phrases, as he always does, to consider whether there was an overwhelming danger that restoration might be scamped if a compulsory rights order could not be extended beyond ten years. We feel that the case cannot be made out unless there is an overwhelming danger.
Since my hon. Friend gave that undertaking we have carried out a detailed survey of the time taken to restore and carry out the five years' post-restoration treatment on sites since the 1951 Code came into operation, and it has shown that agricultural treatment—and this is mainly agricultural land—took more than five years in about 100 cases, often on only a small area of land and not on whole sites. All but eight of those cases were where certain special factors were at that time operating. Therefore, we do not feel that those cases present an overwhelming argument.
The agricultural treatment of restored sites will be carried out by the agricultural Departments as agents for the Coal Board, and my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for those Departments are quite satisfied that they will be able to complete the agricultural treatment within five years, in all but a mere handful of cases. Even in these exceptional cases they will be able to get the treatment so far advanced that the owners and occupiers should be able to complete it, and, of course, they will be compensated for expense reasonably incurred.
After much careful survey and thought by the agricultural Departments, we do not feel that the overwhelming case to which my hon. Friend referred has been made, especially as the cost of works basis for terminal compensation now ensures that restoration will be continued after the end of the Board's occupation. Therefore, having given a great deal of thought and study, we do not feel that the case for extending beyond the ten years has been made out, and consequently I must advise the House to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Robens: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not felt able to accept the Amendment. I recognise that we discussed this matter at great length in Standing Committee and I would not want to go over all the argument again. On this side of the House we pay a tremendous amount of attention to the question of restoration. We are not asking the Minister to extend all these orders; we are asking him to provide that in the exceptional circumstances—and he has now given us figures which show that there are exceptional circumstances—he can use his discretion.
I should prefer to see the restoration completed before the land is handed over. I think that my hon. Friends who have taken a deep interest in the agricultural aspect of this matter will agree with me when I say that it is far better that the land should finally be handed over in as complete a state of restoration as possible rather than that it should be handed over in the knowledge that the restoration has not really been completed, leaving it to the good sense of the tenant or the owner to complete it.
8.15 p.m.
If we had been arguing that the ten years was not sufficient, which was the argument in the Committee, and if we had wanted complete extension for all the orders, I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. But that is not the case. We are merely saying that he should have the discretionary power to extend these orders for a period not exceeding three years in order to effect proper restoration.
I feel that we must press this Amendment to a Division if the right hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot give any undertaking on the matter, because, in our view, restoration is so highly important that in these circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Minister to have reserve powers for the few extra years where restoration can be carried out adequately and completely, rather than turn the land back again to the owner or tenant before it has been completed. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take these discretionary powers to himself.

Mr. MacDermot: The Paymaster-General's reasons for rejecting this Amendment are somewhat misconceived, as he based his whole argument on an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would look to see whether there were overwhelming reasons to support the Amendment which we have been discussing in Committee. But that was a very much wider Amendment than this, and we have deliberately put forward what we feel to be the very minimum that can be asked and which we feel should reasonably be granted on this point.
Earlier, we were envisaging a power in the Minister to extend in every case the ten-year period for the operation of


the compulsory rights order for a further five years. But what this Amendment is directed to is the case, which we are advised occurs, and which the Paymaster-General's statistics confirms do occur, namely, where the restoration which normally is not expected to take more than five years unexpectedly turns out to require six or seven or possibly even eight years. They are exceptional cases, but where those cases occur we feel that the reasonable course is to allow the Board to complete the work of restoration and not to compel it to hand back the land in a partly restored condition, without having finished the job, so that it is left to the owner to complete the restoration, and to claim compensation based on the diminution in value at the time when the handover takes place, with

this hypothetical deduction for the value of the future cost of works payments.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is not in his place now, as he would find that we are attempting to deploy such intellectual resources as we have at our command on this occasion in support of the Board. We feel that this is a case where undue hardship and cost will be imposed on the Board if in those exceptional cases that do occur from time to time the Minister is not given the power to extend the period of the order for this limited period not exceeding ten years.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 194.

Division No. 152.]
AYES
[8.20 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Herbison, Miss M.
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Holman, P.
Probert, A. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Proctor, W. T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr, H.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reeves, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Janner, B.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Boyd, T. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Lawson, G. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Alton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Champion, A. J.
McCann, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Chapman, W. D.
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Coldrick, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, J. W.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Stonehouse, John


Deer, G.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stones, W. (Consett)


Diamond, John
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mason, Roy
Sylvester, G. O.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Thornton, E.


Edelman, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Moyle, A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
West, D. G.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Parker, J.



Hamilton, W. W.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, S.
Pentland, N.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. J. T. Holmes.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gower, H. R.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Aitken, W. T.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Grant, W. (Woods'de)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Armstrong, C. W.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Ashton, H.
Green, A.
Neave, Airey


Atkins, H. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Barlow, Sir John
Grimond, J.
Nicholson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Oakshott, H. D.


Batsford, B. C. C.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, R. G.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Partridge, E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Peel, W. J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitman, I. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Hesketh, R. F.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Black, C. W.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)



Body, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Profumo, J. D.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, J. E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Rawlinson, Peter



Hope, Lord John
Redmayne, M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Renton, D. L. M.


Braine, B. R.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Ridsdale, J. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bryan, P.
Hurd, A. R.
Russell, R. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Campbell, Sir David
Hyde, Montgomery
Sharples, R. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Shepherd, William


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Speir, R. M.


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Storey, S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Keegan, D.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kershaw, J. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Cunningham, Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Dance, J. C. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vickers, Miss Joan


du Cann, E. D. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Wade, D. W.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebona)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McKibbin, Alan
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Webster, D. W. E.


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Mathew, R.
Woollam, John Victor


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.



Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mawby, R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Goodhart, Philip
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Gough, C. F. H.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Clause 47.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 47, line 2, at the end to insert:
appropriate Minister" in relation to a statutory undertaking has the same meaning as in the Act of 1947, in relation to a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking means the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and in relation to a river board or other drainage authority means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

This Amendment is made necessary by the fact that Clause 12 applies the procedures of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, to the apparatus of sewerage undertakers and drainage authorities. It is necessary, therefore, to say in the Bill who are the appropriate Ministers for sewerage undertakings and drainage authorities. The


appropriate Ministers-are the Minister of Housing and Local Government for sewerage undertakings and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for drainage authorities in England and Wales. In Scotland, the Secretary of State is to be the appropriate Minister in both cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 47, line 11, at the end to insert:
drainage authority" has the same meaning as in the Land Drainage Act. 1930.
This Amendment provides that the words "drainage authority" shall have the same meaning as in the Land Drainage Act, 1930.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 15, at end insert:
functions" includes powers and duties, and references to the performance of functions shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Mr. Maudling: There is on the Notice Paper an Amendment in my name, in page 47, line 19, to leave out from "minerals" to the end of line 20 and to insert:
has the same meaning as in the Act of 1947".
Since this Amendment was put down, further doubt has arisen on a legal point, and I therefore do not propose to move it.
8.30 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 48, line 1, to leave out "by sections four and six" and to insert:
in relation to opencast site orders by section four and in relation to storage site orders by section five.
This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of the new Clause dealing with storage site orders.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 48, line 3, to leave out from "has" to "of" in line 4 and to insert:
(subject to the provisions of sections (General limitations on effect of compulsory rights orders) and six of this Act) the meaning assigned to it in relation to opencast site orders by section four and in relation to storage site orders by section five.
This is a drafting Amendment and is consequential on the new Clause dealing

with the general limitation on the effect of compulsory rights orders.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 48, line 6, at the end to insert:
river board" has the same meaning as in the River Boards Act, 1948.
This Amendment provides a definition of "river board", which is the definition in the River Boards Act, 1948.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 48, line 13, leave out "has the same meaning" and insert:
and 'statutory undertaking' have the same meanings."—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 48.—(GENERAL APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

Amendments made: In page 49, line 37, at end insert:
appropriate Minister" in relation to a statutory undertaking has the same meaning as in the Scottish Act of 1947 and in relation to a sewerage undertaking or sewage disposal undertaking or a river purification authority means the Secretary of State.

In line 44, after "undertakers", insert "statutory undertaking". — [Mr. Maudling.]

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 50, line 12, at the end to insert:
(3) For any reference to a river board there shall be substituted a reference to a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment bringing the apparatus of river boards within Clause 12.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 50, line 38, to leave out "section fifty-seven" and to insert "sections fifty-seven and fifty-eight."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I beg to move, in page 50, line 43, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 22 on page 51 and to insert:
Provided that for the purposes of section twenty-two of this Act any improvement on the holding for which the landholder or the crofter would on the termination of his tenancy be entitled to compensation under the Landholders Acts or the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, as the case may be, shall be treated as a separate holding, and any compensation payable under the said Section in respect


of the improvement shall be payable to the landholder or crofter as if he were the owner thereof; and sections twenty-three and twenty-four shall not apply to any improvement in respect of which compensation is so payable.
Under the Acts governing the tenure of crofters and landholders, the crofter or landholder by whom a permanent improvement is executed is put more or less in the position of "owner" of the improvement. It is intended under the Bill to treat him as such and to entitle him to receive direct from the Board any compensation due for damage by opencast operations done to an improvement executed by him. This was provided for in the Bill as originally drafted, but as a result of Amendments to the general compensation provisions during Committee stage, the Bill as it stands may enable a crofter to obtain compensation both from the Coal Board and from his landlord in respect of the same items. The Amendment puts this right.

Mr. Ede: The noble Lord the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says that this Amendment puts the matter right. How does it do that?

Lord John Hope: It is a subtle point, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of this carefully drafted Amendment any crofter who tries to obtain compensation twice would find that he was stopped by the Amendment from doing it.

Mr. Ede: This Amendment is to the disadvantage of this greatly distressed section of the public.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 51, line 34, to leave out "an authorisation under section one of this Act" and to insert:
a compulsory rights order".
It might be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment and the following one in line 39 were considered together.
Subsection (5) of the Clause makes provision for immunity against breach of contract where a feuar is under an obligation under his feu charter. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that that applies only where there is a compulsory rights order. It is quite unnecessary where a voluntary agreement is entered

into, because it would be entered into with the superior owner also.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 51, line 39, leave out from first "the" to end of line and insert:
occupation, or use of that land in the exercise of rights conferred by the order". —[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 51, line 40, to leave out from "is" to "to" in line 41 and to insert:
payable by the Board under section twenty-two of this Act or under that section as applied by section twenty-eight thereof".
I think it would be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time the next Amendment, in line 42, and the subsequent Amendments in page 52, lines 11 and 13. The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that the superior is put in the same position as an heritable creditor and is able to receive his compensation direct from the Coal Board. This will not apply in voluntary cases but only in cases of compulsory rights orders.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 51, line 42, leave out from beginning to "being" in line 44 and insert:
a compulsory rights order by reference to the diminution in value of the land".

In line 45, leave out "or a heritable security".

In page 52, line 1, leave out "or the heritable security".

In line 5, leave out from "occupation" to "and" in line 7.

In line 11, leave out "receive from the owner" and insert:
claim (but without prejudice to the making of a claim by he owner) and to receive payment from the Board".

In line 13, leave out "paid to him" and insert:
which, apart from this subsection, would be payable to the owner".

In line 14, leave out from "excess" to end of line 15.

In line 18, leave out from "discharging" to "as" in line 20 and insert:
such part of the feu duty or ground annual."—[The Lord Advocate.]

First Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING AUTHORISATIONS UNDER SECTION ONE.)

Amendment made In page 53, line 11, leave out from "for" to "in" in line 12 and insert:
the purpose of enabling operations which (if the authorisation is granted) will be authorised operations to be carried out". —[Sir I. Horobin.]

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 53, line 35, after "situated", to insert "and in the London Gazette".
This Amendment and the next, in page 55, line 30, together fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee that notice of the Board's application should be published in the London Gazette.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 55, line 30, after "situated", insert:
and in the London Gazette".

In line 44, at end insert:
10. For the purposes of the provisions of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and of the provisions of paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land Act as applied by the last preceding paragraph, the first publication of a notice shall be treated as taking place on the date on which the notice is first published in accordance with those provisions in a local newspaper, or the date on which it is first published in the London Gazette, whichever is the later date.

In line 46, after "district", insert "to the London Gazette".

In line 48, after "district", insert "to the Edinburgh Gazette". —[Sir I. Horobin.]

Third Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF COST OF WORKS.)

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, in page 59, line 45, after "work" to insert:
and of the estimated expenses of carrying out the work".
Perhaps it would be convenient to consider this Amendment with the next Amendment, in page 60, line 3, at the end to insert:
3. Any dispute arising or deemed to arise between the Board and a person giving notice under the preceding paragraph as to the expenses which may reasonably be incurred in carrying out any work, may be referred by that person to the Lands Tribunal for determination before the work is carried out. For the purposes of this paragraph, a dispute shall be deemed to arise if, within two months of the giving of the notice, agreement has not been

reached between the Board and the person giving the notice as to the expenses, if any, which may reasonably be incurred in respect of any work referred to in the notice.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that would be convenient for the House.

Mr. MacDermot: I am much obliged. This is the more substantial Amendment, but the two are linked.
This is a last-ditch attempt to wring a limited concession from the Government on what we consider to be one of the most important points of the Bill which remain to be discussed. We attempted in Committee to persuade the Government of the merit of a number of Amendments directed to this problem, but without success. The problem arises from the fact that, during the Committee stage, the Government substantially withdrew the greater part of the compensation provisions in the Bill as originally drafted, and substituted new provisions making radical alterations, not only to the Bill as it stood, but I think to anything that has gone before in the law of compensation.
What the Government did was to say that the owner, at the end of the period of occupation, should not have to choose between a diminution in value payment and a cost of works payment, but should be entitled to both, the diminution in value payment being reduced by the extent which the valuer might think reasonable having regard to his prospect of recovering compensation for cost of works.
In general, we on this side agreed with the alterations. We did so recognising that they were an exception, but recognising also that opencast coal operations are in themselves exceptional in nature, that the damage which they do to land is exceptional and that the national interest in having that land properly restored is exceptional. These were the considerations that led us in our broad approach to agree with the new Clauses submitted in Committee, but we felt that they were open to certain very serious objections indeed.
The principal objection was that at the end of the period of occupation, the extent of future cost of works payments was completely open and at large—open as to amount and as to time. There was no limit in time after the end of the period of occupation in which the landowner could come forward and say to the Coal


Board," Now, 10 or 20 years after the period of occupation, we are going to do further works of restoration and we want you to pay for them." Equally, no ceiling was placed on the amount that was considered reasonable.
Our Amendments directed to these points failed, so that what we are seeking to do now is something far more limited. It is to overcome the point, which is perhaps the third objection, which is that there is complete uncertainty as matters stand at the moment, both for the Board and the landowner, whether any future works of restoration that may be done will be considered to be reasonable and will qualify for compensation.
8.45 p.m.
This is something which could work equally hard against the landowner as against the Board. A situation might arise when a landowner was contemplating doing further work of restoration. The Board might take the attitude that it was not reasonable to do it; that is, that the cost of the works would far outweigh any benefit to the land which would result. What is to happen then? If he goes on and does the works, the landowner does them at his own risk, at the risk that if the Board refuses to pay the compensation in the end and he goes to the Lands Tribunal, the Tribunal will uphold the Board and decide that it was not reasonable to do the works. The landowner may have incurred a heavy cost, but will get no compensation.
Putting it the other way round, the landowner may through fear of the result refrain from doing the work, and yet he may have been right all the time in the sense that if he had persevered the Lands Tribunal would have found for him. As matters stand, there is no way in which that issue can be resolved before the works are undertaken. The works have to be done first, and then the arbitration on the dispute follows.
The Amendment provides that if a dispute arises between the Board and a landowner as to the reasonableness of carrying out any works, the dispute may be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination before the works are carried out. Both parties would then know where they stood. This is a limited Amendment. It is far less than anything for which we asked in Committee. We feel that it is eminently reasonable, and

I hope it will commend itself to the Government and the House.

Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir I. Horobin: The Amendments deal with a very important point. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and his hon. Friends will feel that throughout the stages of the Bill we have tried at the expense of very considerable work and effort to meet constructive suggestions, and I am happy to tell the hon. Member that I shall be able, I hope, to meet him considerably more than half way on these Amendments.
As the hon. Member says, the Amendments are directed to a portion of a very important, difficult question which exercised us much in Standing Committee. Broadly, they attempt to provide that notices which a person has to give to the Board shall include an estimate of the cost and that, if there is any dispute, the dispute shall be justiciable before people are committed. The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that, as is nearly always the case, the words of his Amendments are not satisfactory, but I am happy to tell him that in another place we shall be moving Amendments which will completely meet his point about the estimate and will go a long way to meet his point about making it possible to decide the reasonableness before one embarks on the works.
As to why his method of dealing with the second difficulty is not acceptable, I am advised that this is where we have to protect the Board. There can be a dispute about whether the work should be done and there can be a dispute as to whether the cost is reasonable. The second dispute cannot be determined until the work has been carried out. Estimates of expenditure and actual expenditure may differ very considerably. Consequently, it would be wrong to settle the matter beforehand and then put it outside the power of the Board to complain that the final cost was, perhaps, five times as much as the estimate. We shall not be able to meet completely the second of the hon. Member's points, but for a reason which will commend itself to him. We shall be moving Amendments which will show that we have recognised the force of what he has been putting to us.

Mr. MacDermot: Is it contemplated that the estimated cost will nevertheless be taken into account in deciding questions of reasonableness, although it will not be binding on final assessments of compensation?

Sir I. Horobin: Yes. Supposing that the estimated cost is very great, that would be a matter to be taken into account in deciding whether it was reasonable, but it would still be open to the Board at a later stage to say that the claim for compensation was unreasonable, because in fact the cost had been so very much more.
This might be a convenient moment to announce the result of an examination, which I promised to undertake, of another part of this tangled problem, namely, the possibility of limiting the Board's liability to pay cost of works compensation where it trails out for many years ahead. We have been discussing this at length with the Board and considering it very carefully, and we shall be proposing an Amendment in another place which will limit the Board's liability to works of restoration which are carried out within fifteen years of the end of the Board's occupation of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order.
There will be exceptions to that fifteen years for woodlands and orchards, which obviously can never be restored in that period, and also in the case of the special problem of repair damage caused by settlement itself, usually to make sure that that was due to the Board, but which might occur years and years later. It is our intention that these Amendments will have the effect of cutting off the tail of small disputable claims against the Board which might go on for years and years and cause much administrative inconvenience and expense to the Board. I hope that that will be acceptable to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Finally with this tidying-up operation, we are again checking the drafting of Clause 21 and the Third Schedule to make sure that there are no small loopholes which will allow obviously absurd claims to succeed. I hope that the party opposite will feel that we have genuinely attempted to meet the case which they have argued.

Mr. Robens: Of all the speeches the Parliamentary Secretary has made today,

this is the sweetest in our ears, since it came somewhat as a surprise and since we had given up all hope of being able to see an end to the Board's liability. Because of the vigorous arguments which we had in Committee, we put down these Amendments to deal with a very small portion of what we wanted.
What the Parliamentary Secretary said was sound common sense. It was in line with the whole tone of the Government's behaviour on this Bill which has been that when matters have been brought to their attention and they have felt that a suggestion was in the general interest, they have always been prepared to consider the matter. In this case they have done remarkably well and we very much appreciate the work which has been done. We recognise the great difficulty in dealing with matters of compensation of being perfectly fair to everybody concerned in the transaction. What the Parliamentary Secretary said was of tremendous satisfaction to us all, and on behalf of the Opposition I thank him for his personal contribution, which I know has been great.

Mr. MacDermot: In view of the most comforting assurance given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sixth Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION PROVISIONS TO SPECIAL CASES.)

Amendment made: In page 73, line 44, after "sale", insert:
in the open market by a willing seller".[Sir I. Horobin.]

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 75, line 24, at the end insert:

Provisions as to compensation under section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership)

16.—(1) No compensation shall be payable under subsection (2) of section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership) of this Act for any year for which the interest of the owner of the relevant land is held subject to, and with the benefit of, a tenancy which was subsisting immediately before the operative date of the compulsory rights order in question, unless the rent payable under that tenancy for that year is a rent which is subject to a liability to be reduced in consequence of that order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by that order, or is a rent which has been so reduced in pursuance of such a liability.

(2) For the purposes of the preceding subparagraph the rent payable under a tenancy shall be taken to be subject to a liability to be reduced as therein mentioned if, under the terms and conditions of the tenancy or under any enactment applicable thereto, the tenant is entitled to require that rent to be so reduced, or is entitled to require the question whether the rent should be so reduced, or generally what rent should be payable under the tenancy, to be referred to arbitration or to any court or tribunal; and the reference in that subparagraph to a rent which has been so reduced in pursuance of such a liability shall be construed accordingly.

17.—(1) No compensation shall be payable under subsection (2) of the said section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership) for any year for which the owner of the relevant land is entitled to compensation under subsection (2) of section thirty of this Act in respect of a right to which this paragraph applies.

(2) This paragraph applies to any right which fulfils the following conditions, that is to say,—

(a) that it is a right restrictive of the use of the whole or part of the land comprised in the compulsory rights order in question;
(b) that the benefit of the right is annexed to the relevant land, or to that land together with other land, or (if the benefit of the right is not so annexed) that the right is exercisable by a person who is the owner of the relevant land; and
(c) that the exercise of the right, in relation to any land comprised in the order, could (apart from the order) have prevented that land from being used for the purposes which, in relation to the authorisation referred to in the order, constitute the authorised purposes.

18. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of this Schedule any reference to the relevant land shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) of section (Compensation for depreciation of other land in same ownership) of this Act.

This is almost entirely consequential on the new Clause "Compensation for depreciation of land in the same ownership". It simply defines two sets of circumstances where it is important to exclude double compensation. I think that at this late stage the House will not wish me to go into detail. Obviously, it is necessary to make sure that double compensation is not paid.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 75, line 43, leave out "during" and insert:
on or after the operative date of a compulsory rights order and before the end of".

In line 47, leave out "of the period of occupation".

In page 76, line 1, leave out "the" and insert "a".

In line 24, at end insert:
17. Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) of the last preceding paragraph shall have effect (with the necessary modifications) in relation to compensation under paragraph 4, paragraph 5 or paragraph 12 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act as they have effect in relation to annual compensation in respect of a holding to which section sixteen of this Act applies.

In line 42, after "Act", insert:
and of the Fifth Schedule thereto".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Seventh Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 77, line 32, to leave out sub-paragraph (3) and to insert:
(3) Subsection (5) of section twenty-three of this Act shall apply for the purposes of subparagraph (1) of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes mentioned in that subsection; and subsection (6) of that section shall apply in relation to the last preceding sub-paragraph as it applies in relation to subsection (2) of that section.
This fulfils an undertaking to correct a drafting mistake upon which both we and the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) took preliminary shots without success.

Mr. MacDermot: I think that this is a case in which the Minister can legitimately claim that his Amendment is effective and satisfies everybody.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 82, line 29, after "obligations", insert "or restriction".

In line 31, after "performed", insert "or observed".

In line 35, at end insert "or restriction".

In line 36, after "performed", insert "or observed".

In line 37, leave out "the obligation" and insert:
or observe the obligation or restriction".—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 83, line 36, at the end to insert:

PART V

Special provisions as to business, professional and other tenants


18.—(1) The provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall have effect where any of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order is land which, immediately before the operative date of the order, was subject to a tenancy to which Part II of the Act of 1954 applied; and any reference in this Part of this Schedule to a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies is a reference to a tenancy which—


(a) immediately before the operative date of such an order, was a tenancy to which Part II of that Act applied, and


(b) comprises the whole or part of the land comprised in that order.


(2) In this Part of this Schedule "the Act of 1954" means the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and "business" has the same meaning as in Part II of that Act.


(3) Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 12 of this Schedule shall apply for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of that sparagraph.


19.—(1) As from the operative date of the order and so long thereafter as the tenancy continues and the order continues to have effect, so much of the land comprised in the order as—


(a) is comprised in the tenancy, and


(b) immediately before the operative date was occupied by the tenant for the purposes of the relevant business (or for those and other purposes) or was occupied by a person employed by the tenant for the purposes of the relevant business, and


(c) is not for the time being so occupied by the tenant or by such a person, shall be treated for the purposes of Part II of the Act of 1954 as if it had continued to be so occupied.


(2) In this paragraph "the relevant business" means the business by reason of which, immediately before the operative date, the tenancy was a tenancy to which Part II of the Act of 1954 applied.


20.—(1) For the purposes mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph, in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies, paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of section thirty of the Act of 1954 (which specify certain grounds on which a landlord may oppose an application for a new tenancy) shall apply as if any reference to the termination of the current tenancy were a reference to the end of the period of occupation.


(2) The said purposes are—


(a) the purposes of the operation of subsection (6) of section twenty-five of the Act of 1954 (which requires a notice by the landlord terminating a tenancy to state whether the landlord would oppose an application for a new tenancy, and, if so, on which of the grounds mentioned in section thirty of that Act he would do so) in relation to the service of a notice under the said section twenty-five at any time on or after the operative date of the order in question and before the end of the period of occupation;


(b) the purposes of the operation of subsection (6) of section twenty-six of that Act (which enables a landlord, where the tenant has requested a new tenancy, to give notice that he will oppose an application for a new tenancy, and requires him to state on which of the grounds mentioned in section thirty of that Act he will do so) in relation to the service of a notice under that subsection at any such time;


(c) the purposes of the operation of the said section thirty and of section thirty-one of that Act (which relates to the dismissal of an application for a new tenancy where the landlord successfully opposes it) in relation to the determination by the court of an application for a new tenancy, where that application falls to be determined at any such time.


21.—(1) Where an application made under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954 (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) falls to be determined by the court at a time when the current tenancy is a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies (being a time on or after the operative date of the order in question and before the end of the period of occupation) and on that application an order for the grant of a new tenancy is made under section twenty-nine of that Act, the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect.


(2) If it falls to the court to determine the rent payable under the new tenancy, the court shall determine that rent as if the compulsory rights order had not been made, and as if so much of the property comprised in the current tenancy as is comprised in the compulsory rights order were in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date.


(3) If it falls to the court to determine any of the terms and conditions of the new tenancy (other than any term or condition as to the rent payable thereunder) the court

shall determine those terms or conditions as if the compulsory rights order had not been made; but, in so far as any such terms or conditions of the new tenancy impose an obligation or restriction in respect of land comprised in the compulsory rights order, the court may suspend the operation of that obligation or restriction during the period of occupation.


(4) If the new tenancy continues until after the end of the period of occupation, the landlord or the tenant may, by notice in writing served on his tenant or landlord, demand a reference to the court of the question whether any of the terms and conditions of the tenancy (including any term or condition as to rent) should be carried, having regard to the state of the land and other circumstances existing at the time when the reference is determined by the court:


Provided that the court shall not entertain such a reference unless the proceedings are begun within twelve months after the end of the period of occupation.


(5) On a reference under the last preceding sub-paragraph, the court shall determine what variations (if any) should be made in the terms and conditions of the tenancy, as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, and the date (not being earlier than the end of the period of occupation) from which any such variations are to take effect or to be treated as having taken effect; and as from that date the tenancy shall have effect, or, as the case may be, shall be treated as having had effect, subject to any variations determined by the court under this paragraph.


22.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect, in the case of a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies, where an application under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954—


(a) is made by the tenant before the end of the period of occupation, but falls to be determined by the court after the end of that period, or


(b) is made by the tenant within twelve months after the end of that period, and the landlord opposes the application on grounds consisting of or including any of the grounds specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of section thirty of that Act (which relate respectively to the state of repair of the holding and to the tenant's use or management of the holding during the current tenancy).


(2) If the court is satisfied that the matters to which the objection in question relates are attributable to a change in the state of the land resulting from the occupation and use thereof in the exercise of rights conferred by the compulsory rights order, the court, in so far as it considers it reasonable to do so in the circumstances, may disregard those matters in determining whether to make an order for the grant of a new tenancy.


(3) The provisions of the last preceding sub-paragraph shall be without prejudice to the operation of paragraph 14 of this Schedule in relation to things done or omitted during the period of occupation.


23.—(1) In relation to an application made under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954 (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) which falls to be determined by the court at a time when the current tenancy is a tenancy to which this Part of this Schedule applies (being a time on or after the operative date of the order in question and before the end of the period of occupation) section thirty-seven of that Act (under which a tenant is entitled to compensation from the landlord if an order for the grant of a new tenancy is precluded on certain grounds therein mentioned) shall apply subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.


(2) In subsection (1) of that section—


(a) the reference to paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of section thirty of that Act shall be construed as a reference to those paragraphs as modified by subparagraph (1) of paragraph 20 of this Schedule;


(b) the reference to quitting the holding shall be construed as a reference to the termination of the current tenancy.


(3) In subsection (2) of that section, for any reference to the rateable value of the holding there shall be substituted a reference to the amount which would have been the rateable value of the holding on the material date if—


(a) the compulsory rights order in question had not been made, and the authorisation referred to in that order had not been granted and no application had been made for such an authorisation, and


(b) so much of the land comprised in the order as is comprised in the current tenancy had remained in the state in which it was immediately before the operative date of the order.


(4) Paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (5) of that section shall not apply; but—


(a) the amount which, in the circumstances mentioned in the last preceding subparagraph, would have been the rateable value of the holding on the material date shall be taken to be the value which, in those circumstances, and apart from any exemption from assessment to rates, would on a proper assessment have been the value to be entered in the valuation list as the annual value of the holding; and

(b) the provisions of subsection (5) of that section as to the determination of disputes, and as to appeals, and the provisions of subsection (6) of that section (which authorises the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to make rules as to procedure) shall apply in relation to any dispute or reference relating to that amount as they apply in relation to any such dispute or reference as is mentioned in those provisions.


(5) The modifications of the said section thirty-seven specified in the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall apply without prejudice to the operation, in relation to that section, of paragraph 19 of this Schedule.


(6) In this paragraph "the material date", in relation to an application under subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1954, means the date of the landlord's notice under section twenty-five of that Act or under subsection (6) of section twenty-six of that Act, as the case may be, and "annual value" has the same meaning as in section thirty-seven of that Act.

This is a very long Amendment, but it deals with a quite simple point. It is only complicated because it is within the very complicated Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. The whole purpose of this is to protect the position of the non-agricultural tenant whose tenancy falls in during the operation of a C.R.O. The 1954 Act entitles the tenant in certain circumstances to obtain a court order renewing his tenancy, and this Amendment provides that when land is subject to a C.R.O. the court must act on the assumption that it was in the same physical condition as it was immediately before the operative date of the order. There are a number of other technical modifications with which I do not think I need trouble the House.

The point is to ensure that the tenant can get his compensation without damaging the position of the landlord and to direct the court how it is to act when determining the rents and other terms and conditions. There are certain provisions where the terms of the tenancy have become inapplicable and the court can suspend or vary them in the case of necessity.

Perhaps I should draw the special attention of the House to paragraph 23, because we might get an absurd position there. Under the 1954 Act, for a number of purposes, the rateable value is made the criterion for compensation. The rateable value of the land while it was being used for opencast would bear no relation at all to what it was intended to be, a measurement of the tenants right. Therefore, we have had to put in special provisions to deal with that point.

The whole thing boils down to this: a non-agricultural tenant must be protected when his tenancy falls in during the occupation of the Board. The Amendment

simply takes up the various points which arise in applying the 1954 Act in those circumstances.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 97, after "If", to insert "and in so far as".
Is it your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 99, to leave out from "court" to "disregard" in line 100, and to insert "shall"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss the two Amendments together.

Mr. MacDermot: It is only right to point out that this part of the Seventh Schedule is another example of a tendency prevailing within the Government. One of my right hon. Friends pointed out that the Paymaster-General appeared to have been left out of account when the Bill was being drafted, and Amendments were produced at a late stage on his behalf. Here is another matter which is completely new to our discussion. It was never raised at any previous stage, but at the last moment someone has apparently suddenly realised that the provisions of the Bill seriously affect the granting of a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
This is entirely in keeping with the way in which the Bill has been handled from start to finish. It does not surprise us in the slightest to find out that at this late hour a new provision, running to 146 lines, is being moved by the Parliamentary Secretary in a manner which has become very familiar to us. We shall not be very surprised, when the Bill comes back from another place, if our Notice


Paper contains several pages of further Amendments.
The Amendment which I am moving and the one associated with it are directed to quite a small point. The Bill provides that where a tenant makes application under Section 24 for a new lease and the landlord opposes that application on the grounds, in whole or in part, that either the state of repair of the holding or the tenant's management were not what it should have been, then, if the court is satisfied fiat these objections and the matter to which they relate are attributable in whole or in part to the exercise of rights under the compulsory rights order, the court must, in so far as it is reasonable to do so, disregard those matters.
The Amendments would have the effect of not leaving this matter to the discretion of the court, but of making it mandatory. If the default of the tenant under the terms of the holding have been caused by the operation of the compulsory rights order we cannot envisage circumstances in which it would be reasonable to take those matters into account in so far as they are attributable to the operation of the order. The Amendments would have the effect, in so far as these matters are attributable to the exercise of the rights, that the court shall disregard them in determining whether to make an order.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir I. Horobin: Before I briefly comment on the Opposition Amendments to the proposed Amendment, I think that, without being drawn too far, I ought to reply to the preliminary observations on the late stage at which the Government Amendment has been put down. Whilst not in the least dissenting from the view that it would have been better if it had been appreciated at an earlier stage what an appalling problem the Bill would be from a technical point of view, I should say that this particular difficulty has always been quite clear to us in the Department, but, as the length of the Amendment shows, it has been extremely difficult to do something which it was quite obvious would have to be done.
Therefore, rather than hold up the production of the Bill, which the Coal Board badly needed, while that was being

sorted out it was thought better to produce the Bill and bring this in when the technical drafting had been worked out. There was no doubt that we should have to protect this type of tenant, but it was simply a question of the complicated legal drafting.
I come to the small point raised by the Amendments to the proposed Amendment. There is a great deal to be said on all sides. On the whole we think it better to leave the discretion in this matter to the court. The court will hear the case and, if satisfied that a breach, whatever it is, arises out of a change caused by the Board it can disregard it. It is left entirely to the court. I should have thought that, on the whole, that was the best way of doing it, rather than to put a restriction on the court's discretion in the matter. It is not a point of vital importance one way or the other and I would advise the House to leave the Bill as it is.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Seventh Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AND IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)

Amendment made: In page 84, line 14, at end insert:
(g) Part V shall be omitted.—[Sir I Horobin.]

Ninth Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO NOTICES.)

Amendments made: In page 88, line 32, leave out "authority sending it" and insert:
person by whom or on whose behalf it is sent".

In line 39, leave out "authority" and insert "person".

In line 40, at end insert "or other document".

In line 44, leave out "furnished that authority with" and insert "given".

In line 52, at end insert:
4. The preceding provisions of this Schedule shall not apply to any notice for which a method of service is prescribed by regulations under this Act, except in so far as any of those provisions are applied by those regulations.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

9.10 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this late stage I do not think that the House will wish for a long disquisition on this Bill, but I think it would be proper first to say that we have now reached the stage when we can see the general form of a permanent, decent code for the working of opencast sites other than by the remains of war-time emergency Regulations.
I have said that I very much doubt, in the light of experience, whether it was appreciated on what an enormously complicated task we had embarked when the Government took up the extremely attractive, and I think in principle sound and valuable, but very novel conception of granting compulsory temporary rights in land rather than relying on compulsory purchase. It was a very ingenious idea. I can claim no credit for it; it is one of the few things in the Bill which remain from before I was suddenly called upon to deal with it. Nevertheless, in the light of experience I frankly think that it put a task on the draftsmen which it was impossible for them to carry out as satisfactorily as we should have wished in the time available. With the good will and co-operation of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of the Standing Committee we have, I think, very greatly improved the original draft, and it would be worth while if I very briefly drew the attention of the House to the main changes which have taken place while the Bill has been passing through the House.
I could make an enormous list. Even on the Report there were over 100 Government Amendments, and I shudder to think how many there were in Standing Committee. First, we have substantially met the main point raised by the Opposition on Second Reading about the Board's compulsory powers over land used for stocking grounds. While we did not go the whole way, I think we have met much the bigger half of their point and of the Board's difficulties in this connection.
Leaving aside a number of important things like special provisions about trees, we have made two major changes in respect of amenities. The Clause which we have dealt with this afternoon, based on the Electricity Acts, deals with amenity questions when authorisations are being considered, and we have also this afternoon dealt with an Amendment protecting the curtilage of houses and gardens from excavation.
We have increased the period of notice of entry for prospecting to the great advantage not only of owners and occupiers but also of local authorities, who have important matters to consider. We have also greatly extended the number of persons entitled to receive those notices. Lastly, we have completely re-drafted the compensation Clauses, to the great advantage not only of the owner and the occupier but also of the restoration of the land. There has been a great extension of cost of works. We have thus dealt with many legitimate anxieties of local authorities in matters such as playing fields and recreation grounds and we have dealt with compensation for allotments and market gardens.
In particular, I promise not to deal in more than a passing reference with the thorny subject of mineral compensation which those who were in Standing Committee will remember at one stage took four pages of the Order Paper to deal with one Government Amendment. I will not go through all that now. At any rate, we have greatly improved the compensation for minerals. These are all quite substantial improvements. The Bill is a very different and better Bill because of them, and I think that the trouble that has been taken has been well worth while.
The opportunity did not arise at any time during Report, so I should now like to take the opportunity to make a statement on an extremely important and contentious and difficult matter. On the question of going back over land that has been previously affected, I can give a slight reassurance to hon. Members interested.
After this discussion in the Standing Committee on the question of re-entry on to land previously requisitioned I made a detailed survey of all the new sites likely to be available for production in the next three years. This survey


showed that new sites containing about 35 million tons of coal would be available, and that if there were no re-entry on to land previously requisitioned under Defence Regulations, about 10 million tons of this coal would be lost. In these circumstances, to prevent the Board from making C.R.O.s on land previously requisitioned would involve putting at risk an unacceptably high proportion of future output. The Board might still get some of this coal by agreement with the landowners and occupiers, but without compulsory powers in the background we could not rely on that.
The Government, therefore, cannot amend the Bill, but it is already our policy to avoid re-excavating land which has previously been excavated except in those cases where the land was worked in the early days of opencast, and re-excavation to a greater depth will now yield a substantial tonnage of coal. The Government and the Board propose, if this Bill goes into operation, to extend this policy, and the Minister—the House will forgive my reading from my brief, but the statement is important—will not confirm compulsory rights orders against the wishes of the owners and occupiers of land which has been previously requisitioned for opencast coal operations unless there is a really substantial tonnage of coal at stake.
I hope that hon. Members will feel that that statement goes quite a way towards meeting the very genuine points that have been made about the hardship caused by the Board going back over land a second or third time. I do not think that the House would wish me to say more. I am sure that this Bill is essential if we are to have opencast mining at all. I think it is a much better Bill than it was when it was introduced and that, in many respects, it marks an advance on corresponding legislation, certainly in the matter of compensation. I commend it to the House.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Robens: I shall not detain the House very long because, after the many hours we have spent in Standing Committee, one feels that one has wrung the subject dry. Obviously, from the moment we determine to continue opencast mining by other than the Defence Regulations, we find ourselves led down a path—a labyrinth, really—of legislative

procedure. I am bound to say that I do not believe that this Bill could have emerged as it has now without the co-operation of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the Paymaster-General in giving very careful attention to matters raised from this side of the House and of the Standing Committee. We, on our part, have always recognised when we have reached the stage when no further concessions could be wrung from an unwilling Minister, and at that stage we have desisted, rather than spoil the atmosphere in which the debates on the Bill has been conducted.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) will be very pleased indeed by the statement that the Parliamentary Secretary has now made; that only in exceptional circumstances, and where there is, in fact, a very large tonnage of coal involved, will the Ministry agree to give the Board authority to enter on to land that has already been requisitioned for opencast coal. I feel that my hon. Friend's very deep and moving speech on this subject has had a considerable effect and has impressed the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Government have been very reasonable in meeting the important matter which was raised earlier about disposal points and stocking grounds. Throughout the whole of the consideration of the Bill, both in Committee and in the House, there has been unanimity in wanting the very best possible restoration.
We must not think for a moment that this Bill alone has created a desire for adequate and proper restoration. I am perfectly certain that, from the moment that opencasting was devised as a method for producing coal under very difficult circumstances during the war, the agricultural interests and those who were producing the coal were anxious to have the best kind of restoration—the agricultural interests for the specific reason that they had to use the land when the contractors had gone.
I have found that, with very few exceptions, contractors themselves have been anxious for efficient restoration because they could see opencast coal mining lasting for many years, as indeed it has done, and they knew full well that unless they were able to help in the proper restoration of the land, public opinion would stop opencast mining, no matter what was


the cost to the country in the loss of coal. We could never envisage a situation in which hundreds of thousands of acres were to be disturbed and ruined for agriculture in the future. Therefore, there has always been this incentive on the part of the Coal Board, contractors, Members of this House, Ministry officials and all those associated to try not to spoil the amenities as far as this is possible, and to restore land to the very best of their ability.
I believe that perhaps this Bill has performed one other good purpose. It has once again focused the attention of all of us on this very big operation that is still going on and that is still an awful nuisance to a lot of people, and has forced us to look once again at restoration and the provision of the amenities when restoration has been completed.
As to compensation, I think that the approach has been to provide adequate and fair compensation in justice to all, and I believe to that extent we have succeeded.
It has been a real pleasure to have served in the consideration of this Bill because of the constructive spirit that has been displayed by all hon. Members who have wanted to make this legislation serve the purpose for which it is intended.

9.23 p.m.

Sir Albert Braithwaite: . Having been in this venture from the very inception, I feel that tonight, having given opencast legislative form for the first time, I should say a word or two.
I appreciate many of the difficulties that this operation has caused, but I want to stress the great value that it has been to the nation, particularly in the war years when we had many problems. It must be some satisfaction to the Father of the House, who was then Minister of Mines, that he gave us sanction to go ahead with the scheme at a very difficult time. Now that the technique of getting this coal is so well known to us, it can be won in a way which causes the least disturbance.
I am sure that this Bill, with its compensation Clauses, will make it a great deal easier for the national Coal Board to negotiate its arrangements with the various people who have to be consulted before a site can be worked upon. I

hope that it will still be a useful part of Britain's economy. I lean to the view that coal is the basis of our island's prosperity and that nothing else we have is as valuable to us.
I am sure that there will come a time when the marketing arrangements of our coalfields will again return us the full amount that we used to have in the past. I was horrified only this week to receive a letter from a friend who visited Southern Ireland and to learn that the Southern Irish are buying their coal almost exclusively from Poland, when they sell practically all their products in this country. These are things which should be examined very carefully and sorted out. It is on the balance of payments in Europe, through coal, that we can finally stabilise our position and have far more certainty than we have had in the past.
I want to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and his ability in directing the Bill, at very short notice, through the Committee stage. As the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has said, it has been a complicated Bill. It could be nothing else. In some parts of it, I felt that the Government were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but I suppose it had to be so in order that all the legal jargon should be put into the Bill to give the necessary protection. Not being a lawyer, I could not understand half the things which were said in this connection upstairs.
I wish the Bill a really good reception in the country. I hope that it will do much to minimise some of the discontent and irritation which opencast working has caused, and I hope that it will make a contribution to our future economy worthy of the time the House has spent upon it.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: At this stage, I should like to say a word or two in appreciation of the attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General. As is well known, I have from time to time spoken very strongly, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend that I have spoken from deep conviction, and I hope that they do not take it personally. Having lived in my constituency and seen some of the ravages of opencast mining, I have spoken


strongly, as hon. Members well understand, about certain activities which have been taking place since 1941.
I am delighted that the Government have introduced a Clause dealing with amenities. This has been a very sore point with me and with many people in the division I have the honour to represent. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) occupied a position similar to that now occupied by the Parliamentary Secretary, he came and looked at the ravages caused by opencast mining. The hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary has been to visit the place and he, too, knows something of the ravages of opencast mining. As a result of our persistence and persuasion in Committee, the Government have introduced the amenity Clause which we have accepted today. As one who has fought long and hard for the protection of our woodlands and the amenities of mining areas, I am very grateful to the Government for conceding the point.
I hope that we have, through the Bill, made it possible for much better restoration of ravaged land to be carried out. It is a step in the right direction. In years gone by, it was a headache, a heartache even, to the farming community, and I hope that the provisions in the Bill will mean that far better restoration of the land will be carried out.
There is also in the Bill a new compensation Clause. That in itself is another step in the right direction. I was also delighted with the concluding statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that the Government have now given consideration, through our persistency and doggedness, to the question of second and third visits to sites which have already been visited. That again is a step in the right direction. After all, one can understand and accept the disturbance once and it may be that one can understand the disturbance twice. But when the Coal Board comes along three and four times to disturb the farmer and his farmland, this breaks the hearts of the farmers. I was glad to hear tonight that the Government will give serious consideration to the matter before they give permission for a site to be visited three or four times.
I have followed the Bill from 22nd January through all its stages and I have

never failed to attend when it has been considered. I do not say that in a boasting manner; it was because of my profound interest in the protection of parts of this country which have hitherto been sadly neglected, particularly from an amenity point of view. We are not delighted with opencast mining, but with the approach that has been made by the Ministry to the many things that we have suggested.
The Bill cannot destroy or eliminate the bitterness which has been created, but if it is rightly applied—and again I mention the regional officers and residential engineers—it will bring a high degree of contentment to those who have to face the consequences of what opencast mining means. I do not say that I welcome the Bill with open arms, but I am satisfied that it will go a long way towards creating a degree of satisfaction where hitherto bitterness has prevailed.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Speir: I realise that at this stage there is not much hope of getting any more concessions from the Government in this House, but I should like to ask for one or two more definite assurances before we part with the Bill, and I shall be surprised if we do not find some more concessions are granted in another place.
First, however, I should like to congratulate the Government on their courage in bringing this Bill forward and, by so doing, dispensing with still more Defence Regulations. By introducing this Bill the Government have demonstrated the importance which they attach to dealing with both property and individuals in a fair, open and democratic manner. I should like to pay my tribute to the Paymaster-General and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the very kind and helpful way with which they have dealt with Amendments which have been put forward by both sides of the Committee.
Having paid my brief tribute to the Ministers and the Government, I must make it clear that in the north of England opencast operations by any method, whether under the Defence Regulations or under statute law, remain hideous and horrible. They cause great hardship and a great deal of inconvenience to those who directly suffer from them as well as


to those who live in the neighbourhood. However good the terms of compensation may be—and I grant that they are better under this Bill than they have been hitherto—the fact remains that the agricultural community would like to see opencast operations abolished altogether—and as soon as possible. As I have said before, if opencast operations took place in the home counties near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) or near where he lives, there would be such an outcry that they would soon be abolished.
Unfortunately, it is mainly in the industrial areas, and still more so in the mining areas, which have already paid such a heavy price for deep-mined coal, that these operations take place. They continue at the cost of the loss of good agricultural land, of considerable damage to amenities and much personal suffering. The Bill, let us get it quite clear, authorises these operations to continue for another twenty years.
In view of the agitation which the Conservative Party in the past has undertaken against opencast mining, we ought to be ashamed at bringing forward this Bill now, especially today, when the fuel situation is much easier than it was in the war or in the immediate post-war conditions. The prolongation of opencast mining can be justified only if it can be shown to be overwhelmingly in the national interest and if my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General can give an assurance on behalf of the Government that the utmost care will be exercised in authorising all opencast operations, and that, in particular, full weight will be given to the planning and amenity interests.
I am a little afraid that now that the Bill is very near to becoming law, the Government and the National Coal Board may think that they have been given the green light to rampage all over the country. The Board may take the view that Parliament has given its blessing to a go-ahead wherever the Board thinks there is any coal which can be obtained by the opencast method and that it has a charter to produce the maximum amount of opencast coal—and to do so regardless of the damage which may be done to our amenities.
Admittedly, we are still short of fuel and we still will require coal in large quantities for many years to come, but I do not think that the nation at this stage needs or desires coal at any price and regardless of the damage which is done thereby to the countryside. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, on behalf of the Government, may accept that opencast sites must still be selected with the utmost care and that a real regard must be paid to the preservation of amenities.
As the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) have both emphasised, we must still pay considerable attention to improving the code of restoration, particularly concerning drainage and the replanting of both trees and hedges. One has the impression that the drains are chucked back far too quickly and far too casually and haphazardly. Far too often when visiting these sites, one sees that wire and concrete posts have taken the place of hedges and trees.
Much as I dislike the Bill, I have not opposed it and I do not now oppose it, for it is an improvement on the Defence Regulations. I hope, however, that the Government can give a definite assurance that when the Bill becomes law, it will be operated in a careful and statesmanlike fashion and that the interests and views of both local authorities and individuals will be given the utmost consideration.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: Whatever advantages and improvements we have made in the Bill, I am sure that there are very few Members who represent mining constituencies or who live in mining areas who would not like to see the very last of opencast mining. It would give me great pleasure to move the rejection of the Bill if it would bring to an end the evils associated with the obtaining of coal by the opencast system. I know that is not possible, and I recognise that one thing which this Bill will do is to bring some order into the approving and planning of the restoration necessary in respect of land on which this work has been undertaken.
It will also give an opportunity to all the parties interested and to all the parties which wish to oppose, if they have any representative capacity, to do so when authorisation is sought to use certain


land for this purpose. I know of no interest that may be excluded under the Bill, and this, in my view, will be a great improvement on the existing arrangements. One particular effect, as the last speaker has said, is that we shall be saying goodbye to the Defence Regulations and putting this work under a Statute of this House, which is a step in the right direction.
Another improvement is that, in connection with the planning of operations, all the local authorities, whether county-councils, borough councils or county district councils, and persons interested, whether as owners, lessees or occupiers of land, will have an opportunity of being heard when the inquiry is held in respect of an authorisation. This will certainly eliminate a great deal of the ill-feeling which has emanated from opencast working.
Despite what the Minister has said, I profoundly regret that it is necessary to go back on sites which have been previously worked. In constituencies like mine and those of some of my hon. Friends on these benches, in which coal has been obtained since about the time of the Industrial Revolution and where coal is almost everywhere, not only have people suffered considerably from mining subsidence over the years, but almost every part of the constituency has been assailed, and is likely to be assailed, as the Ministry of Power will know by the number of letters which it receives from the local authorities.
While we dislike opencast working of coal very much indeed, we have to welcome the arrangements which are embodied in this Bill. I, too, wish to pay my tribute to the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power for the very cordial way in which they have taken some of the criticisms made against them. They have had to bat on a wicket which they would no doubt have prefered not to have been defending. Therefore, I welcome the Bill in the sense which I have described, and I hope that by its operation a great deal of the ill-feeling which has manifested itself in the past may be eliminated.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: It is not my intention to delay the passage of this Bill in its final stage unduly. I opposed this Bill very vigorously in Committee,

and, in fact, I am opposed to opencast mining in any form, but, if it is to continue, I welcome the form of this Bill in so far as it is putting an end to operations under the Defence Regulations.
I also welcome the extension of individual freedom in the degree of protest which is allowed in this Bill, and also the provisions regarding the consideration that will be given to paying adequate compensation, but particularly I welcome the degree of planning which is now required. On the question of the position of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in this matter, I should like to ask the Paymaster-General how that Department is to fit in when this Bill is in operation. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has more knowledge of this matter and has a special department formed to deal with planning matters throughout the country. I should like to see the Ministry of Power and the National Coal Board making more use of this Department of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in dealing with this aspect of the matter.
In regard to compensation, I must say that a lot of people will never be compensated for the way in which they are affected, and I am particularly reminded of a small village near my own constituency, and this must be true of many mining areas and their inhabitants. They cannot be properly compensated for the noise of the blasting and the nuisance and the dust and dirt which settle down on them from these operations. The old people suffering with their nerves as a result of the blasting continually going on around them and students having their examination chances jeopardised cannot be properly compensated. It will be interesting to see how the Ministry of Power and the Board will deal with this aspect of compensation, for it will have to be considered. That is why I welcome, first, the degree of protest allowed and, second, the fact that compensation will have to be considered before the operations start.
I welcome the attempt within the Bill to regularise opencast mining. There is already enough spoliation in mining areas. On Second Reading, the Paymaster-General gave some figures when he referred to the number of acres being churned up by opencast mining, relating them to the nation's agricultural acreage. That was a false picture, and


it was misleading to the House, because the opencast mining takes places in mining areas and the acreages in those districts which have been taken into consideration are not those of the nation. As has been said, it is true that there is no opencast mining in the Home Counties; there would be a great protest if opencast mining took place in Southern England.
We have enough spoliation as it is without allowing the process to continue unnecessarily. I should like planning control extended in the hope that there would be some development in mining areas. I have witnessed the extension of spoil heaps. They are called muck stacks in Yorkshire, bings in Scotland and pit heaps in Lancashire. I should like to see "spoil heaps" as the universal term. I should like to see the Ministry of Power and the Board using planning authority, the experience of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the experience gained in the restoration of land following opencast coal mining operations, to get rid of the mountains of slag and other spoil heaps.
For these reasons, I welcome the Bill in its present form. I am against opencast mining, which I regard as a disruptive, mongrelised form of coal mining, and there is a tendency for it to continue, particularly if people are seeking authorisation to continue towards the end of the ten-year period. With some reservation, I welcome the form which the Bill takes and the compensation and planning measures which will flow from it. Nevertheless, I hope that opencast mining will cease within the ten-year period.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Like other hon. Members, I have seen the countryside defiled by opencast mining, but I knew that the country needed coal. It is as if we were passing from military law to civil law. When the Bill was introduced I welcomed it. Indeed, the Opposition as a whole welcomed the Bill to such an extent that they have used all their energies to improve it.
Something has been said this evening about the National Coal Board. It should be put on record that we support the Board and the mining industry. If coal is necessary for the well-being of the nation and its people, and for other

countries, too, then opencast coal mining should continue without our jeopardising those who work in the deep pits. But I want to add a word of warning. A great deal of competition is taking place among contractors. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, but the recent code of restoration is not being adhered to.
Quite a lot of trouble will arise unless the Coal Board and those responsible for opencast mining face their responsibilities fairly and squarely. There is a case in my constituency—with which I shall probably have to deal—which will involve many thousands of pounds because the Board has not carried out a verbal agreement.
While welcoming the Bill, those responsible for it must fulfil its obligations. It may be a successful Measure, because opencast mining will die a natural death—and the Bill has a life of only ten years. I conclude by paying my tribute to the Paymaster-General and to the Parliamentary Secretary, and also to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have given much time and thought towards making this Bill workable.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I had the honour of joining the Committee consideration of the Bill in midstream, due to the sad and untimely death of our friend, Ronald Williams. When I read through the Report of the earlier part of the Committee proceedings and saw with what knowledge, thoroughness and care he had examined those parts of the Bill, it seemed to me that the Minister would be less than human if he did not feel some compensation in that loss in that the Bill has now had a much easier passage, in some ways, as a result of the absence of Ronald Williams.
Substantial changes have been made in the Bill, to some of which we have not been able to give that thorough attention which they deserve. The compensation provisions include important and radical departures from the general practice in compensation matters. I referred to those earlier today. It is right to place on record that we on this side of the House regard those changes as being very special provisions directed to very special circumstances. The fact that we agreed to them in this case does not


mean that we consider that they could or should in any way be considered a precedent for any future legislation dealing with compensation. The compensation provisions are unusually generous, but we thought it right, because of the overriding national interest in insuring proper restoration of agricultural land, that they should be included, and those considerations have guided us in accepting these provisions.
I conclude by saying how pleasurable I found my task in Committee. At times, the work of opposition is very frustrating when one feels that one is getting nowhere, but in this case we have had in essence a non-controversial Bill, a Bill dealing with a matter which none of us likes. All of us were endeavouring to make the Bill as effective and as workable as we could. It has certainly been gratifying to see what attention the Government have paid to the points we have raised, and the many concessions which they have made to our point of view. I join in paying my tribute and expressing my gratitude to the Government for that attitude.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Neal: The Bill which we are discussing today is very different from that presented on Second Reading. Drastic changes have taken plaice in Committee. Few Bills have suffered such mutilation and changes at the hands of their authors. Perhaps we ought not to complain about that, because our Parliamentary procedure provides for a Committee stage to take a second look at legislation which may have been hastily devised and imperfectly drafted.
I said on Second Reading that this was a Bill of good intentions, but that the good intentions were so enshrouded in mysterious legal nomenclature that the goodness was difficult to find. The good intentions remain, but so does the complicated nomenclature. Indeed it has been supplemented during the Committee stage to an extent which has confounded a layman like myself. I think that the Bill, even now, is at once a lawyer's windfall and a layman's pitfall. It is difficult to understand what the draftsmen have been aiming at in some of the Clauses which were agreed to during the Committee stage, some of which I shall perhaps have an opportunity to mention later.
If the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) were to reflect on the work that has been done in this industry, he would find it difficult to believe that over 150 million tons of coal have been extracted from the earth without the aid at all of these complicated legal entanglements.
All my life I have been associated with deep mining in one way or another. To that extent, perhaps, my prejudice is understandable. So far as I am concerned, I would rather end opencast coal mining than mend it. But while there is a proved need for the supplementation of deep-mined output, a Bill of this nature is very necessary to remedy many of the shortcomings of the past fifteen years.
There are many people who believe that this Bill should be refused a Third Reading by reason of the amount of the stocks of coal which there are in the country. I do not want to embarrass the Minister by going into those figures. I say that, whatever the stocks of coal at the present time, if opencast mining is to be continued, if only on a limited scale, there is need for a Bill of this kind.
Those people who have to suffer the inconvenience of opencast operations, whose daily life is disturbed, whose business is incommoded will feel that this Measure is an ambulance towards recovery. The Deputy Chairman of the National Coal Board, in a public utterance recently, was arguing in favour of the continuance of opencast mining and on that occasion he said that this country could not afford to scorn the methods of coal production that were operating in wealthy countries like the U.S.A. and Russia. The analogy was not a very good one. It is precisely because opencast working is so very different in these crowded islands that the necessity for this Measure has arisen. Here land is scarce and valuable and we have to restore it as nearly as possible to its former state of production. In many cases, sites are so contiguous to dwelling areas that the loss of amenity and inconvenience is greater in this country than it has ever been in those countries where they can get opencast coal without troubling about restoration at all.
Provision of the kind which this Bill offers is only elementary justice. Indeed, if the parties in this House were to change sides it would be necessary to


find some permanent solution of this problem even then. For that reason, as my right hon. Friend indicated, we shall not divide the House at the end of this debate. To us on this side of the House the most welcome provision in the Bill is that which provides for public inquiry. Indeed, this outstanding democratic diversion from the past abolishes the arbitrary right to enter land and exploit its outcrop seams without the consent of the interests concerned.
Under the Defence Regulations of the past, owners were not allowed to question the right of the practice to enter, the tenants and their interests were inadequately considered and there was no opportunity of presenting their objections. I should have thought that every hon. Member of this House associated with mining has at some time or another found a victim of opencast mining who has come to him to present his case to the Minister.
Under the Bill, circumstances will be more difficult. First of all, the National Coal Board will have to publish in a newspaper for two successive weeks details of any site it intends to excavate. It will have to serve a notice on the local planning authority of its intention to work certain areas, and if objection is made by the interests concerned there must be a public inquiry. Of all the advantages of the Bill, the public inquiry is the best.
We have not had some of the pungent speeches against the Government from their own side that were made during the Second Reading. I am glad that we have not had a repetition of the charge that too much power is invested in the Minister. Protests were made that the Minister of Power was being invested with powers that formerly belonged to three Ministries and the suggestion was made that a public inquiry should decide whether a site should be worked or not. I am in favour of a public inquiry, but we could not leave to it the responsibility of deciding whether a site should be operated or not. The Minister of Power is responsible for providing the nation's energy; to him must belong the final right to decide where a site should be excavated.
There are eighteen compensation Clauses in the Bill. They provide compensation for loss of annual value, for the cost of removal, for the cost of works,

for diminution in holdings, for short-term improvements, forced sales, easement of minerals and many other things. Scarcely one feature of loss is left out of the compensation provisions. I would pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not often find myself in agreement with him, but he has certainly carried a heavy burden of responsibility during the progress of the Bill and he has done his best to meet our suggestions on compensation.
Farmers in particular are pleased with the compensation Clauses. Up to recently our post-bags were filled mainly with protests from one organisation or another about the inadequacy of compensation, but there has been a strange silence over the past few weeks which seems to indicate that farmers are satisfied with the compensation Clauses. We could not afford to allow farmers to be disgruntled and dissatisfied. I appreciate that they have not rendered any conspicuous electoral support to the Labour Party, but they are a section of the community whose services are vital to our economy and whose exertions should not be invalidated by the operation of another Act. When the Bill comes into operation there will be fewer complaints from farmers than we have had during the past fifteen years. At any rate, nobody will be able to claim that where food production has been hindered the loss has not been adequately compensated.
A good deal has been said about restoration and I do not want to labour the point. In the past there has been a lot of undue publicity about imperfect restoration. The technique of restoration has been improved and we hope that under the Bill it will be further improved. We cannot always replace the bounty of Providence but it cannot be denied that in some instances fertility has been improved by modern methods of restoration. The compensation for loss of value provided for in the Bill should ensure even better restoration. Because it is incumbent on the N.C.B. to pay compensation for the loss of value, that should be a greater incentive to the Board to restore land to its former value wherever possible.
We join with the Minister in commending this complex and complicated Bill. We are glad to have taken a share in improving its original provisions. We shall welcome the time when its operation is no longer necessary.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: It appears to be the general view of the House that this Bill has been substantially improved in the course of its Committee stage and to that improvement hon. Members on both sides of the House here and in Standing Committee undoubtedly contributed.
Our proceedings were very much saddened at an early stage by the death of Ronald Williams, to whom I should like to pay a personal tribute. His death came as a very great shock to me and I know that it was a great sadness to all of us, on both sides of the House.
May I also pay tribute to the remarkable work given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Bill? He came to it at short notice and carried the whole weight of the discussions throughout the Committee and Report stages. I am very grateful to him, as I am sure the whole House is.
Opencast mining remains a disagreeable necessity. It is still a necessity, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) have pointed out, but it is certainly disagreeable, as the hon. Members for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) have also pointed out. The improvements created by the Bill will place the operations on a statutory basis rather than on Defence Regulations; secondly, they provide proper terms of compensation; and, thirdly, they ensure closer control of planning and authorisation and carrying out of restoration activities by the National Coal Board.
I would assure the hon. Member for Barnsley that there is the closest possible co-operation between my noble Friend the Minister of Power and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in all these planning matters and in procedure leading up to deemed planning permission. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham that I entirely accept, on behalf of the Government, all that he said about the importance of considering amenities. We shall certainly ensure in determining, where any particular opencast operation is authorised, that full consideration shall be given both to amenity and planning considerations. Permission will not be given

unless the demand for coal and availability of coal on any particular site is so great as, in the opinion of the Government to outweigh the amenity conditions, which will be fully examined under the provisions of the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend will find that there will be more hedges and fewer fences, and certainly fewer concrete posts in future.
I am glad that the Bill has been received in the House on the basis and in the atmosphere in which it has been discussed. I think that it is a good thing to get away from Defence Regulations and on to a proper statutory basis. So long as this disagreeable necessity for opencast mining continues, I am sure the country will find it continuing on a better basis under the Bill than under the previous system.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLICE, CARMARTHENSHIRE AND CARDIGANSHIRE (AMALGAMATION)

10.9 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I beg to move,
That the Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire Police (Amalgamation) Scheme, 1958, a Draft of which was laid before this House on 24th April, be not made.
Before I go into the general merits of this amalgamation scheme between the two counties, I wish to say that we have two causes of complaint against the Home Secretary as to the manner in which the Scheme was brought into being. When the House considered the Police Act, 1946, an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), then Home Secretary, that before permitting a compulsory scheme the first step would be a conference in which the local authorities whose forces the Home Secretary desired to be amalgamated would be consulted. The purpose of that was that the Home Secretary should put before the local authorities concerned the reasons why he thought it necessary to have a combined police force for that area. It was a very admirable, very sensible and very democratic procedure, but it was not followed in this instance.
In fact, no consultations took place at all or were even suggested by the present Home Secretary. That was a breach of the undertaking which was given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. I believe that it is true to say that consultations took place in other amalgamations. They took place, for example, in the case of Mid-Wales and Gwynedd. I have no doubt that they took place in other instances outside Wales.
Not only were local authorities not consulted in this instance but the very first intimation which they received that an amalgamation was even contemplated was from the newspapers. I submit that that was adding insult to injury and that the manner in which the Home Secretary treated the authorities in this respect was very cavalier indeed, to say the least.
I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) will make it very clear that the proposed amalgamation is opposed not only by Carmarthenshire but also by Cardiganshire. It is in no sense a marriage of convenience. It is a union at the point of the pistol. I ask the Government to remember the song, "You can't get a man with a gun." This is not the best way to go about a scheme of amalgamation.
The Home Secretary says that this is being done in the interests of efficiency. With the permission of the House, I should like to examine that claim for a moment or two. First, is this area which he has chosen for amalgamation a workable one? Carmarthenshire has many qualities. I will not dilate upon them at the moment, but amongst many other qualities is the fact that it is the largest county in Wales, with a circumference of 160 miles. If Cardiganshire were added it would mean that the distance by road from the southern boundary to the northern boundary would be about ninety miles. To make matters worse, the bulk of the population in Carmarthenshire is at one extreme end, while the bulk of the population of Cardiganshire is at the other extreme end, in Aberystwith. It therefore seems to me that it is hardly a workable area.
The Home Secretary may say that there are other police areas as large or larger in other parts of the country, but there

are few, if any, with such totally inadequate bus and train services as this area. I ask the House to realise that it takes an hour longer to get from Aberystwith to Llanelly than it takes to get from London to Cardiff. Moreover, it is not so uninterrupted a journey. I have counted twenty-five stops between Aberystwith and Llanelly. It is hardly what I would call an easily accessible area. Had the Home Secretary come to this area last winter when the roads were sometimes impassable, I think he never would have dreamed of bringing this Scheme before the House.
I maintain that conditions such as these are bound to impair the efficiency of the police force. The personnel will be spreadeagled over this vast area. That is not to speak of the difficulties facing the members of the Standing Joint Committee. If a member travels from Borth, in Cardiganshire, to Carmarthen-shire for a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee, he cannot make the return journey in one day, but will have to stay the night on the way.
When one considers efficiency, one cannot underestimate the all-important human aspect in this or in any other service. The views of the force on this amalgamation were taken, and out of about 150 men and women in the force, 146 were against it. Three were in favour. Those three came from Cardiganshire, and were attracted, no doubt, by the prospect of membership of one of the most efficient police forces in the kingdom. Three or four were new recruits who, perhaps, felt a little nervous about expressing their opinion.
No police force can be efficient unless its members are contented. Dissatisfaction is bound to have an effect on their efficiency and morale, and in the Carmarthenshire Police Force there are many reasons for dissatisfaction, for a sense of insecurity and of uneasiness, all caused by the Scheme contained in the Statutory Instrument now before the House.
Another point is this. Every member of the Carmarthenshire Police Force knew perfectly well, when he signed on, that he might be moved from one area to another in the county, but, under this amalgamation, he has no guarantee that he might not be sent to an area in which, on his original entry, he had no wish to work.
Another very important matter is the widows' and orphans' fund. By their own efforts, the members of the Carmarthen-shire constabulary have raised a widows' and orphans' fund which is worth about £30,000, and from which each widow receives 25s. a week. I think that the force is entitled to know what is to happen to that fund. Is it to be specifically earmarked for the men who belonged to what was the Carmarthenshire Police Force, or is it to be dissipated amongst the Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire forces? The police are also greatly concerned whether promotion will be on a county or on a force basis. All these matters have given rise, and will continue to give rise, to a great deal of dissatisfaction, of insecurity and uncertainty, none of which will contribute to the efficiency of the force.
On one thing there is complete unanimity, and that is on the efficiency of the Carmarthenshire Police Force itself. That was made abundantly clear at the recent inquiry, when Mr. Nelson, who conducted the inquiry, reported specifically that the Carntarthenshire Constabulary is a most efficient force, supported by an effective standing joint committee. That view was emphatically endorsed by the Home Office.
Not only are they a very fine body of men, but the force is very well equipped. It has specialised departments—a criminal department, a traffic department, training and welfare and photographic departments, and it has just had a large new police headquarters built at a cost of about £77,000. The housing conditions would, I think, compare extremely favourably with those of any other forces in any part of the country. It is, in fact, very proud of its housing record.
Another very important test of efficiency is the record for indictable offences cleared up, as compared with the number that became known to the police. I should like to give the figures from 1948 to 1956. Those figures vary from 81 per cent. to 76 per cent. Those are remarkable figures in themselves, but they are even more remarkable when one compares them with the figures for the rest of the country which show percentages in 1954 of 49 per cent. and in 1956 of 47 per cent., while Carmarthenshire shows a figure of 76 per cent. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is an impressive record and entitles

them to say that they are a very efficient force.
The reward for this initiative and progress and these high standards is that their individuality is to be merged and they are to be made to pay through the nose for the amalgamation, because in the Scheme the Home Secretary—I was about to say "in his wisdom," but I think I should say "in his unwisdom"—has provided that the cost of the combined police authority is to be based on rateable values, which will mean increased costs to the County of Carmarthen. It will mean an increase of £2,750 on their present rate in 1958–59 and it will rise to £6,000 in 1960–61.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may say, "We need not worry unduly about that; there is to be a review in three years", but that review must of necessity be based largely on the same figures. I do not see how the Home Office can get away from that. Before that time the County of Carmarthen will have borne more than £13,000 in additional police costs, of which Cardiganshire is to be relieved. I understand that Cardigan does not complain about that. I am sure that the people there will not misunderstand me if I say that it is very much in character that they should not. The "Cardi" is the Aberdonian of Wales. But sitting as we do on the Carmarthen-shire side of the fence, we worry very much. We think it is extremely unfair that they should have to suffer this extra burden not because of inefficiency but because of the efficiency of the force.
This basis of assessment was not the only basis for which the Home Secretary could have opted. He could have made the allocation, as has been done in the case of Gwynedd and Mid-Wales, half on the basis of weighted population and half on rateable value. They would have been prepared to compromise on that basis.
Why was not the Home Office prepared to operate on that basis as it has done in other areas? If a county has got a special case for consideration, it is Carmarthen-shire, because it has the third highest rate in the whole of England and Wales. Therefore, Carmarthenshire has a special case. On grounds of equity and efficiency of the administration of the police force, not only in Carmarthen but in Cardigan as well, I hope the Home Secretary will think again and will think this time to better purpose.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I beg to second the Motion.
With the exception of certain of her concluding remarks, I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George). I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is to reply for the Home Office. It is particularly appropriate that he should be given this task, because we have had only one debate on an amalgamation since the passing of the Police Act, 1946, and, on that occasion about seven years ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman valiantly championed the cause of little Rutland, which the Home Office then desired to have swallowed up by Leicestershire. In a few moments, I shall be citing some of the arguments he then used in his efforts to save Rutland from that fate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was joined in his efforts by the present Attorney-General. I shall be referring to his arguments. I hope that, before the end of the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will come here to repeat the arguments he then advanced in favour of Rutland. I am pleased to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs in his place. I feel sure that, after what happened in Rutland, the right hon. Gentleman will not stand by without putting in a word in favour of the sentiments of two counties within his jurisdiction.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to the efficiency of the Carmarthen-shire Police Force. She was fully entitled to do so because, at the inquiry into the amalgamation conducted by Mr. Nelson, not a shadow of evidence was given at any stage to suggest that Carmarthenshire had other than a thoroughly efficient force. It is only right, in the circum-stances, that I should indicate to the House what evidence was given about the state of efficiency of the police force of the County of Cardigan. It would be a grave disservice to the members of that force if the impression went out that any reflections were made upon their honour or integrity. The chief witness called by the Home Office to deal with the question of the efficiency of the Cardiganshire force was Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Tarry. This morning,

I re-read the evidence he gave at the inquiry. Mr. Tarry has carried out Her Majesty's inspections of this and the Carmarthenshire force since 1951. I say nothing about Carmarthenshire. The hon. Lady has dealt with Carmarthenshire adequately.
Her Majesty's Inspector has never made a single adverse report about the police force of the County of Cardigan. He admitted at the inquiry that its operational work had at all times been efficient, with no question whatever of a period when that was not so. The hon. Lady gave figures about the detection and prevention of crime. The position in relation to Cardiganshire in this respect is the same as it is in Carmarthenshire. Our figures for crime detection are substantially higher than the national average. Our figures for crime prevention are substantially higher than the national average.
It is sometimes suggested against small forces that they do not provide full opportunities for promotion within themselves. The figures for Cardiganshire show that promotion prospects are far better than the national average. That was a specific matter dealt with at the inquiry, and it was quite clearly elucidated that promotion prospects in Cardiganshire were well above the average to be found in the forces of this country.
Cardiganshire, in contrast to most forces, has had no difficulty in recruiting, and recruiting suitable members. Mr. Tarry agreed that training arrangements were satisfactory. I could go on in the same vein. All the evidence of Mr. Tarry relating to his inspection of this force throughout the period from 1951 to the time when he was giving his evidence was that this force was operating with complete efficiency.
In March, 1956, events occurred which led to inquiries, which undoubtedly ultimately led to the Home Office taking the action which it has taken. I shall not go into the circumstances which arose in March, 1956, other than to say this. The two inquiries—the Scott Henderson Inquiry and the Phillimore Inquiry which followed—were both inquiries which were requested by the police authority in the County of Cardigan; so that whatever came to light as a result of those inquiries,


came to light as a result of inquiries requested by those responsible for police administration in the county.
Whatever may have happened in March, 1956, certainly did not relate to the behaviour of the rank and file of the police force, because it was conceded in both inquiries that the rank and file of the police in Cardiganshire had behaved in an impeccable manner. One thing, however, which was conceded at Mr. Nelson's inquiry relating to amalgamation was that whatever the position had been for a short period in 1956, by the time the inquiry was being held the state of the Cardiganshire force was, with one possible exception, to which I shall refer, perfectly efficient.
Let me indicate that by reading one question and the answer given at the inquiry. The witness who was then being examined was Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, who was being examined by counsel on behalf of Cardiganshire. He put to Mr. Tarry this question:
May I take it that accordingly you are now of the view that Cardiganshire has, subject to the fact, which I will came to, that it has not yet a chief constable, resumed its former efficiency which you regarded as existing unbroken up until 1956?
The answer to that question was "Yes"—that is to say, it had resumed its former efficiency which had existed unbroken up until 1956. The answer was:
Yes. There is a very big 'if' about this, because of the vacancy of the chief constable.
That is to say, at the time that this inquiry was held, the only allegation of inefficiency which Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary could make against the Cardiganshire police force was one which related to the appointment of a chief constable.
Of recent months, there have been troubles—I shall not refer to them—with chief constables in many parts of the country. No one can suggest that the troubles which have occurred with regard to chief constables have anything to do with the size of the force with which they have been concerned. There is nothing whatever to suggest that there is any greater likelihood of trouble with chief constables or the hierarchy in a police force in a small one as contrasted to a large police force.
I have indicated the views of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. The Home Office, at that inquiry, placed great

reliance upon what Mr. Phillimore had had to say in his report, and particularly upon one of his phrases when he talked about the deficiencies being "ineradicable" in a small force. He went on in the same report to say that he did not doubt that "under a strong chief constable Cardiganshire could be efficient and may readily attain a corporate spirit which is perhaps less easily instilled into a larger force".
The whole basis of the evidence of the Inspector of Constabulary was that there would be difficulty in getting a chief constable for a force of this size. That is an absurd suggestion. The Inspector of Constabulary concerned was appointed a chief constable from the rank of inspector, and I refuse to believe that there are not inspectors and superintendents in the police forces of the country who are perfectly competent persons who would be prepared to take on the task of chief constable of a force of this kind. If the police forces of the country cannot produce one man of suitable experience to take over a force of this kind it is a very sad reflection upon them.
The Home Office referred at the inquiry to restoring confidence and discipline in the force. As one who lives within the county, I would say that there is certainly no question today of any necessity of restoring the discipline and confidence of the Cardiganshire Police Force, and if the Home Office makes any suggestion that there is not adequate discipline and confidence in the force at the moment, I should like it to indicate it. If there has been any suggestion during the last twelve months of lack of discipline or lack of confidence within the force, it behoves the Home Office spokesman to indicate what he has in mind in that respect.
The Home Office witnesses also referred at the inquiry to the need to restore the confidence of the public. The confidence of the public in the county in which the force operates had never been lost by the rank and file of the force and was quite unaffected by the complications which arose in March, 1956.
The noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen referred to the absence of any consultation or conference. I associate myself with what she had to say in that respect. The attitude of the Home Secretary in this regard is in marked contrast


to the assurance given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he was Home Secretary and, perhaps even more important, contrary to his actions in relation to the amalgamations with which he was concerned. Before amalgamation took place—I am dealing only with the cases which were controversial in one form or another—in the case of Mid-Wales a conference was held, I believe in Mid-Wales.
With regard to Cheshire and Chester, there was a conference. What is particularly relevant is that when the then Home Secretary, in 1949, proposed the Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire and Pem-brokeshire amalgamation there was again a conference. When this amalgamation was proposed, the first that Carmarthen-shire knew about it and the first that Cardiganshire knew about it was what those authorities read in the daily newspapers.
I referred to Pembrokeshire. The attitude of the Home Office towards that county has certainly been somewhat peculiar. What I have to say about Pembrokeshire in this respect is my own personal view. At the inquiry conducted by Mr. Nelson, the Home Office said that amalgamation of the three counties was better than amalgamation of the two. While I am opposed to amalgamation, if amalgamation of Cardiganshire is inevitable, I would far sooner see amalgamation of the three counties than the amalgamation which is proposed.
The argument for leaving Pembrokeshire out of the amalgamation was very strange. It was that Pembrokeshire was opposed to it. It did not matter that Carmarthenshire was opposed to it. It did not matter that Cardiganshire was opposed to it. The Home Office paid deference to the view of Pembrokeshire and was prepared entirely to ignore the views of the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan.
If this amalgamation is forced on the two counties, it will be introduced in the most unfavourable climate. Both counties will enter it nursing a grievance. The hon. Lady has referred to the financial grievance of Carmarthenshire. That is not a grievance which I share. The remedy for that grievance is for the Scheme to be rescinded. If it is suggested that the Scheme will place a financial burden on Carmarthenshire, the

remedy which Cardiganshire suggests is that the circumstances which will give rise to that maladjustment should not be allowed to occur.
I can advance a number of arguments to show why this financial arrangement is the right and proper one, if the amalgamation has to take place, but the Home Secretary has had Cardiganshire's views in this respect, and I shall not repeat them. If there is to be amalgamation, then I have no quarrel with the specific financial arrangements which are planned.
It is the normal arrangement and follows the lines of the other eight amalgamations which have taken place. It is the arrangement which has applied in five of the cases. That applied in two would place a greater financial burden on Carmarthenshire and in one case only would the arrangement produce a result which would be beneficial to Carmarthen-shire. This is the method which has been adopted for the amalgamation of fire brigades and is the normal one used for the amalgamation of local government services.
Here are two authorities, one substantially larger than the other, being forced against their will to amalgamate. What is happening in effect is that the larger is swallowing the smaller, and doing it against its will. Nothing is more unpleasant for the swallowed and the swallowed than the action of swallowing something which one does not want to swallow. That is the position, and Carmarthenshire will regard this amalgamation in that light—and I do not make any complaint about it.
Carmarthenshire has a satisfactory unit at the moment. It is the largest county in Wales and the set-up is perfectly satisfactory. Now it has to have added to it another very wide and extensive area which it will regard as an unwanted appendix, a complication to its communications with the added difficulty that it has a grudge in relation to the financial operations.
Cardiganshire will have six representatives out of 22 on the committee controlling the joint police force. I do not complain about the proportion, but the fact is that it will cease to have the slightest say in the control of the police force which operates in its area. It will hardly be worth while going near the meetings, which will take place outside its county, in Carmarthen. On a previous


occasion the Under-Secretary used these words, and I pray them in aid in this debate. He quoted this passage in the debate on 20th February, 1951, in relation to the amalgamation of Leicestershire and Rutland Police Forces:
The administrative control of the police of a district is an ancient democratic right. … That democratic right should not lightly be taken away.
He went on to say:
The local responsibility for police for the supervision of a county police force should not be separated from the general responsibility for local government."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1215–6.]
If the Home Secretary has his way, this amalgamation will take place immediately before a review of local government and local government boundaries. If this amalgamation were part of a general operation to amalgamate a number of small forces in the country, it would be less open to objection, but there are in Scotland a large number of forces—at least a number of forces, "large" is not the word to use—which are substantially smaller than the Cardiganshire Police Force. I wish to refer to what the present Attorney-General had to say in that same debate. I am disappointed that he is not here to repeat his arguments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The only words which the judge could find for his conclusion.…
That was the judge who carried out the inquiry and who was equivalent to Mr. Nelson—
having approached it. I think, from quite a wrong angle, is the smallness of the force and the slowness of promotion".
He went on to say:
These arguments are not, in my view, sufficient to justify this scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1230.]
Here we have a scheme which is opposed unanimously by the Standing Joint Committee of Cardiganshire, opposed by the police forces concerned and opposed by public sentiment. What is true of the County of Cardigan is equally true of the County of Carmarthen. I urge the Home Secretary to consider whether he should force on these two counties an amalgamation in which the prospects of healthy and wholesome co-operation are endangered by the existence of many difficulties.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I wish to say a few words in support of this Scheme and to lend a somewhat different voice to the debate from the voices which have been raised so far.
In his conclusion the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said that the Scheme was contrary to the sentiments of the people and of the police force in Cardiganshire, and the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) said that it was also contrary to the wishes of the people of Carmarthenshire. I would point out at the outset that when the efficiency of a police force is in issue, it is not solely the concern of the people in the area where the problem arises but is a matter of acute public interest. The public generally are extremely concerned about the efficiency of the police in all parts of the country. If, as sometimes happens, some inefficiency is shown in the administration of a force somewhere in the country, it is the police in Britain in whom the public confidence is lost.
I therefore submit to the House that the real test here is not what is felt by the people in Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire; it is, what is the existing standard of efficiency in the police force in Cardiganshire? We know the standard of efficiency in Carmarthenshire, and we should ask ourselves, if those two forces amalgamated, would the standard of efficiency over the combined area be raised? In my view it would.
We in Wales—and I speak from experience—have police forces which are comparable with any police force in Britain, and we are proud of that. I know that everyone here connected with Wales is anxious that that standard should be general. I think that if there were this amalgamation of the two forces, we should be on our way to making that standard of efficiency general.
I said that I speak from some experience, because I have had considerable contact with an amalgamated police force in Wales—that of Gwynedd, where three counties were amalgamated. I can personally testify to the fact that there has been great efficiency as a result of the amalgamation of those three counties. We have had another amalgamation in Wales—that in Mid-Wales, where Brecon, Radnor and Montgomeryshire were amalgamated against their will.

Mr. Ede: A conference was held, presided over by myself when I was Home Secretary. It is true that of the three counties who came there, two were opposed to the amalgamation. We had a discussion during the morning. We adjourned for lunch, and after lunch I was assured that all three were in agreement with the Scheme, and no opposition was made to it thereafter.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience whereas I speak from hearsay in the matter. I thought that it was a compulsory amalgamation. If I am wrong, I apologise. I know that there was opposition to the amalgamation initially. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman's charm won round the opposition.
Perhaps I may now say just one or two things about the observations of the two speakers who have preceded me. The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen quite rightly said that Carmarthen had already in existence a most efficient police force. There is no doubt whatsoever about that—a most efficient police force, and a first-class chief constable, and a very good Standing Joint Committee. Nothing detrimental has ever been suggested, of course, against that force, but, in my submission, the Carmarthen people should think of this, not as a Carmarthen matter but as a police matter, and should ask themselves whether they, with their efficiency, could take in Cardiganshire, and whether the general overall effect would be increased efficiency. One knows that they have their own personal pride in their county and their own pride in this excellent force which has existed for so long, but I would suggest that in this matter they should subordinate their own feelings to the common good, because I think that common good will result from this amalgamation.
In that respect, I would pray in aid what was said at the inquiry by the Chief Constable of Carmarthenshire himself—although I cannot remember, of course, his exact words. He was called on behalf of the objectors, but admitted, in cross-examination, that, having regard to the size of Cardiganshire, manifest benefit in efficiency would result if the Cardiganshire force were amalgamated with that of Carmarthen. That is what was said by that chief constable, who,

we all hope, will soon be the chief constable of the joint amalgamated area.
As to whether the amalgamated force would be workable, the hon. Lady herself knows the Gwynedd area. She will know, for instance, the distance from Aberdovey to the north of Anglesey. That is a distance far greater than the journey to which she referred—Aberyst-with to Llanelly—and probably a much more difficult one. Nevertheless, evidence was given at the inquiry by the Chief Constable of Gwynedd that the administration of the area was very effective, so I do not think that the hon. Lady, or other people from the County of Carmarthen, need worry as to the workability of this scheme. It is a far more workable one than Gwynedd, and the Chief Constable of Gwynedd testified to the excellence of the arrangements there.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has given the House extracts from the speech of—

Mr. Bowen: The evidence.

Mr. Thomas: I beg pardon—extracts from the evidence of Mr. Tarry, who was one of the witnesses at the inquiry. Mr. Tarry, the Inspector, Mr. Armstrong, another Inspector, Lieut.-Colonel Williams, Chief Constable of Gwynedd, and the Deputy Chief Constable of the Mid-Wales Constabulary, all experienced people, all testified from their own experience that it would be to the advantage of police efficiency in Cardiganshire if the force there were amalgamated with that of Carmarthen. Each one of them said that.
If I may say so, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman put his case extremely well for his county, but I did not feel that he was thinking from a very broad point of view but purely from his county's point of view. The position, as I see it, must really be considered alongside the history of Cardiganshire. I do not want to go into that at length, but let us remember that Cardiganshire has the smallest county police police in the whole of Britain—

Mr. Bowen: No.

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry—in England and Wales. In just over ten years, through its Standing Joint Committee, it brought disciplinary charges against two of its chief constables.

Mr. Ede: And proved them.

Mr. Thomas: A situation arose in 1946 which, I submit, could not have arisen in a force which was large and efficient. The situation was serious. It was, in fact, a deplorable one and public confidence in the police went down greatly as a result. There is no doubt that it would be extremely difficult for the force that exists in Cardiganshire today to emerge completely unscathed from the situation that obtained. It is important that police efficiency should be maintained, and the only possible way in which this can be done is by this Scheme going through and the two forces being amalgamated.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), and I would appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw this Scheme for three reasons. I will not argue about the principle of amalgamation being right or wrong. There are circumstances in which, in Wales—as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) rightly said—the amalgamation of police forces, resisted and feared at the beginning, has now been accepted, and looking back everyone says that it was to the advantage of the people and the police.
I wish to put three reasons to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Home Secretary to show why I believe they should withdraw this Scheme. The first is that the local authorities believe that the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when Home Secretary, has not been carried out, and that that is a breach of faith. The House assented to the Police Bill under which this amalgamation is to take place on the then Home Secretary's assurance that before a scheme for compulsory amalgamation was imposed upon a number of forces who objected to it, there would be consultation.
The second reason is that if there is to be an amalgamation of forces in this area of south-west Wales—and I would not reject that for a moment—let it be an amalgamation which is determined solely by considerations of efficiency, and arrived at after full consideration. If

the Home Office were now actuated solely by the desire to get an efficient police force, is this the scheme they would put forward? We are entitled to an answer. If it is felt desirable that the police forces in the three adjoining counties of Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire be linked up for the purpose of efficiency, on grounds of principle I would not object, and that is what the Home Office themselves proposed. Why have they dropped it? Why did they do so at a time when circumstances favoured the amalgamation of the three—when the Chief Constable of Pembrokeshire had retired? At this very moment, the Home Office have given consent and approval to the appointment of a new Chief Constable for the Pembrokeshire Police Force.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was Home Secretary, he put forward a proposal for the amalgamation of the forces of the three counties. He had a consultation with them. I am afraid that the lunch provided in Carmarthen was not of the right quality, and the result was that the scheme was still objected to. My right hon. Friend carried out his pledge to have a conference, and the result of the conference was that the Home Secretary dropped the scheme. But that was the scheme to put forward. This Scheme is not determined by considerations of efficiency. If it were so determined I am sure the Home Secretary would agree that the original proposal was the one to adopt.
This is the wrong time to bring forward this Scheme. I am not entering into discussions about what went wrong in Cardiganshire. The circumstances in which it is proposed to amalgamate these forces are these. We are proposing to amalgamate these forces because something went wrong in Cardigan. It is the wrong time to do a thing of this kind—to begin with this joint police force in circumstances in which everybody says that one is a first-class police force and the other one is hitched on to it because something went wrong and it is not efficient. Those are not auspicious circumstances in which to start an amalgamation scheme. They are the worst possible circumstances in which to start a Scheme of this kind.
The Home Secretary will know that we have had discussions with him upon


this matter. The suggestion was made to the Home Secretary, which I hope he will consider, to withdraw this Scheme without prejudice to its being reintroduced in a couple of years' time, in the course of which time the Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committee and Police Force will have had an opportunity of putting behind them the events of the past. Then let the matter be reconsidered, not in this atmosphere which is wrong and poisonous, when everybody says, "The reason why we are doing this is that the Cardiganshire Police Force had something wrong with it; the chief constable was condemned for some reason." That is amalgamation in the wrong spirit.
The Home Secretary will be well advised to withdraw this Scheme. The Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committees and both police forces are opposed to this Scheme. The local authorities are against it. If they were opposed to it for parochial reasons I would not support them. I support them because this Scheme will not make an efficient police force. I ask the Home Secretary to withdraw this Scheme and bring forward a considered scheme based on grounds of efficiency. Speaking for myself, I would not oppose it then. I oppose it now because from every standpoint it can only be forced, and I do not believe that in these matters force ought to be adopted.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I shall not stand long between the Joint Under-Secretary and the House, but my name has been mentioned on several occasions during this debate and, as the Home Secretary knows, I spoke to him about this matter when the cloud was no bigger than a man's hand, some time ago.
There is undoubtedly at the moment in this country grave disquiet about what has happened in some of the police forces and when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and previous Home Secretaries have been questioned about provincial forces, the proper answer is, "They are independent police authorities, over which I have very little control". Therefore, the efficiency of those forces must depend to a very large extent upon the courage—and I use that word advisedly—of the standing joint committees,

watch committees and other authorities in dealing with suspected indiscipline and inefficiency inside a force.
Everyone knows—or at least everyone who has been a member of a standing joint committee, or a county council, or who has been a county justice—of the difficulties of dealing with the discipline of police forces. I know it, because I was a member of a standing joint committee for nearly thirty years. Now let us not forget that Cardiganshire had the courage—the courage—when accusations were made against the Chief Constable, to investigate them themselves and then to call in Mr. Scott Henderson and a superintendent of police from the West Riding of Yorkshire. They found that the action of the Cardiganshire Standing Joint Committee was correct and that the Chief Constable should be given the opportunity of resigning. This was communicated to the Home Secretary, who did not reverse the verdict, but reduced the penalty to a reprimand.
Now, I do not know how one reprimands a chief constable. We can reprimand a Minister, but for anyone who serves on a standing joint committee to be asked to reprimand a chief constable is something past my understanding. I say that a standing joint committee which has had the courage to do what Cardiganshire has done is one which ought to be congratulated and ought to be supported. I know of no grounds for suggesting that the public authority for the police in Cardiganshire has fallen down on its job. I am not so certain about the Lord Lieutenant, although I must not discuss him here. Neither do I understand why the person who accused the Chief Constable had his name, when it reached the top of the roll for High Sheriff, not pricked because he was told he was a controversial figure. If one is to do one's duty in public life, there must be occasions when one must be controversial and to be controversial on a standing joint committee is one of the highest tests of courage.
I regret, too, that this amalgamation is for two counties only, because when two counties as dissimilar in size as Cardiganshire from Carmarthenshire become associated, the association in the end must appear to be annexation. Three counties should be brought in, because with three one could so arrange representation


by agreement that no one county could outvote the others. That is the reason for the success in Mid-Wales and in Gwynedd. Those three authorities have to meet jointly and cannot rely on one to rule the roost. There is no similarity here with the Rutland case. There the total was only 20 policemen and there was no chance of promotion for anyone for ten years at least, short of sudden death.
I do ask the Home Secretary to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and to withdraw this Scheme. Let him have a conference between the three counties in an effort to arrive at the most efficient arrangement.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have a great fondness and respect for the Welsh people. In this difficult and delicate matter, I know that my right hon. Friend has been most conscious of local pride and feelings in the two counties.
It may help if, first, I remind the House of the statutory background to the matter, because, although the circumstances surrounding this particular amalgamation have no precedent, it is, in fact, part of a process which has gone on since the right hon. Member for South Shields invited Parliament to pass the Police Act, 1946. Under that Act, there were three kinds of amalgamation—automatic, voluntary and compulsory. The automatic amalgamations were of all the non-county borough forces, which, immediately on the coming into operation of the Act on 1st April, 1947, merged with their neigh-bouring county forces.
That applied in every case except Cambridge and Peterborough. Voluntary amalgamations under Section 3 have led to six amalgamation schemes involving 14 forces, including the one referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), the amalgamation of Anglesey, Caernarvon and Merioneth in making the combined force of Gwynedd.
There are then the compulsory amalgamations, and of these there have been three before the present one. Those three schemes involved seven different forces, including the Mid-Wales force of Brecknockshire, Montgomeryshire and

Radnorshire. Those amalgamations left Cardiganshire with the smallest force in England or Wales, less than 80 strong. In spite of the fact that it was the smallest force, until 1955 Cardiganshire constabulary was undoubtedly efficient within the limits of its size and resources, as Mr. Nelson found. In 1956 and 1957 came the unhappy circumstances involving not only the Chief Constable and several senior officers, but their relationship with certain members of the Standing Joint Committee. They, as the House knows, were the subject of several inquiries by experienced Queen's Counsel.
If I may say so, I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who moved and seconded the Prayer, did so in very temperate terms, hearing in mind the local feelings aroused. They refrained, and I wish to refrain, from rubbing salt into old wounds by referring in detail to any of the unhappy circumstances. Nevertheless, one must stress the findings of those inquiries which are relevant to the issue of amalgamation. Mr. Scott Henderson, in January, 1957, heard the disciplinary charges against the Chief Constable. He said that the question arose whether it was in the public interest that such a small police force should continue to function as a separate unit.
Mr. Phillimore, who was appointed soon afterwards to inquire into the administration and efficiency of the Cardiganshire constabulary and the state of discipline of the force, found that it was not functioning efficiently and that, in the light of the circumstances which had arisen and the personalities involved, the faults which he had found in this small force were ineradicable.
I will quote what he said at page 17 of his Report, his concluding words, because they are very forceful. This is relevant to the very point which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made about not doing anything now—about postponing action. He said:
To leave mutters as they are today would be unfair to the bulk of the force, who have carried on loyally and efficiently throughout the period of about nine months during which their Chief Constable and consequently the whole force has been the subject of criticism. It would also be unfair to the public, whose confidence in their police force has inevitably and rightly been seriously affected.


Those findings necessarily compelled my right hon. Friend to consider what should be done.
Let me concede at once that if no trouble had arisen with regard to Cardiganshire or its Standing Joint Committee, the question of amalgamation might never have arisen. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan paid me the rare compliment of quoting something which I said in this House seven years ago, when the Rutland-Leicestershire amalgamation was afoot. The answer to the hon. and learned Member, however, is that nothing had ever happened in Rutland, or, so far as I know, in any of the other small forces, comparable with what happened, alas, in Cardigan, but that if any such events had occurred in Rutland or in any of those small forces, the Home Secretary of the day and the House would at once have been put on inquiry what to do, in just the same way as my right hon. Friend was put on inquiry.

Mr. Bowen: Mr. Bowen rose—

Mr. Renton: I have a lot of ground to cover to answer all these points by half-past eleven, but I will do my best.
Therefore, I say that in the face of these reports something had to be done. What was done? The first step was that my right hon. Friend asked the Standing Joint Committee of Cardigan to consider some form of voluntary amalgamation with a neighbouring county; but the Committee unanimously declined to do so. This left my right hon. Friend with no option but to consider a compulsory amalgamation. Both geographically and to get the best helping hand available, Carmarthenshire seemed to be the obvious choice.
It has been suggested that Pembrokeshire should have been brought in as well. Indeed, the right hon. Member—

Mr. J. Griffiths: It was the Home Office who suggested that Pembrokeshire should be brought in.

Mr. Renton: That is perfectly true; and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), having considered the suggestion, did not pursue it.
The point with which we are faced tonight is whether the addition of Pembrokeshire was necessary to secure the efficiency of the proposed, or a proposed, combined authority. Mr. Nelson found that a combined authority consisting of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire would be efficient and we accept his findings. I shall have more to say about that presently.
My right hon. Friend having informed both counties of his proposal to form such a combined authority, then appointed Mr. Nelson in accordance with statute, to hold a local inquiry. It has been suggested by several speakers this evening that there was a breach of an undertaking given by the right hon. Member for South Shields on the Report stage of the Police Bill, in that no conference was held before amalgamation.
We should remind ourselves of the words of that undertaking. I have the exact words with me. It is a fairly lengthy quotation and I will faithfully paraphrase it. The words can always be checked afterwards. That undertaking was that before promoting a compulsory scheme if a voluntary scheme was not submitted, the first step—I emphasise "the first step"—would be to hold a conference with the police authorities of the forces which the Secretary of State might desire to amalgamate, to put before them his reasons for setting up a joint police force. It is a fact that no such conference was held in this case. As I shall show, there were special reasons which justified my right hon. Friend in not holding one.
I agree that the letter of the undertaking of the right hon. Member for South Shields was not complied with, but I do not agree that there was any breach of the spirit of it. In fact, my right hon. Friend did very much the same as the right hon. Member for South Shields did in the Leicestershire and Rutland case, when the right hon. Member certainly did not comply with the letter of his own undertaking.
There was no conference with the two police authorities when that compulsory scheme was prepared and put forward in 1949, and no meeting was proposed before the right hon. Gentleman decided to give formal notice to the authorities of his


intention to proceed. When he sent formal notice to the authorities of the scheme which he proposed, they were invited to offer any comments or suggestions on the scheme and were told that the Secretary of State would be prepared to discuss any such comments and suggestions; but the authorities did not avail themselves of this opportunity for a meeting. I mention that only because it has been said that there was a conference in the Rutland case, whereas there was not.
What happened in this case? The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen said that there was no conference even suggested. If she will turn to page 9 of Mr. Nelson's Report, to the last sentence in paragraph 13, where a Home Office letter of 3rd July, 1957, is quoted, she will find these words:
In order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether any useful purpose would be served by discussion of the question of amalgamation it would be helpful if you would furnish him in the first instance with a brief statement of the points which they wish to raise.
I would have wished, to answer this quite fully and fairly, to make various other quotations from the correspondence on pages 8 to 10 inclusive of Mr. Nelson's Report, but I am prepared to leave it to the House. Hon. Gentlemen who have interested themselves in this matter will know—

Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order.

Mr. Renton: May I finish the sentence? I leave it to the House to consider, on the basis of that correspondence and the circumstances of this case, whether any such consultation was likely to serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Under-Secretary has very properly said that he has more quotations which he is not able to read because of the shortness of time. There are other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. As the debate has been proceeding for less than an hour and a half, and it is an important matter and we are complaining of being rushed, may I ask whether you would be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to use your powers under Standing Order No. 95A (2), which says that if Mr. Speaker considers that a question is of importance

because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion … he shall interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting …"?
Would you be prepared to do that, as some of us have important questions to ask about the future of the police officers themselves who will be concerned in this amalgamation and about whom nothing has been said by the Joint Under-Secretary in his reply?

Mr. Speaker: My view is that this is a matter on which I should put the Question at half-past eleven. As regards the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I think he could properly elicit the information that he wants by question and answer in the usual way.

Mr. Renton: The final inquiry into the proposed amalgamation scheme was carried out by Mr. Nelson, and he heard evidence from both counties and recommended that amalgamation should take place in accordance with the draft Scheme. He found that the Cardiganshire force had not been restored to full efficiency—this is the answer to the question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the conditions in the force in the last twelve months—and, after giving due weight to local pride and historical and other considerations, he found that these considerations did not outweigh the need for amalgamation.
As to the question of the feelings in Carmarthenshire, I should tell the noble Lady, particularly on the question of cost, that if one compares the police expenditure of the two counties over the last ten years it will be found that it is in the proportion of 75 per cent. to 25 per cent., and that that approximates very nearly to the rateable values on which it is proposed to divide the expenditure in future, because the rateable values are also approximately 75 per cent. to 25 per cent.
As I now have to conclude, I would just say this. The question is whether it is in the public interest that in this small county we should let things drift and hope for the best, or whether we should take the advice given as a result of three impartial and careful inquiries and join that police force with a larger and more efficient one. I ask the House


to endorse the view and the findings of Mr. Nelson and the decision of my right hon. Friend because I feel that it will be realised that it is in the interests of Wales.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 123.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Grimond, J.
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Callaghan, L. J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, John
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Watkins, T. E.


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, D. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Pearson, A.
Lady Megan Lloyd George and


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Probert, A. R.
Mr. Bowen.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Oakshott, H. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Gower, H. R.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Ashton, H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Page, R. G.


Atkins, H. E.
Green, A.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Peel, W. J.


Batsford, B. C. C.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pitman, I. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bingham, R. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Redmayne, M.


Body, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Renton, D. L. M.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Braine, B. R.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hurd, A. R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Bryan, P.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kaberry, D.
Temple, John M.


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kershaw, J. A.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leavey, J. A.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Wall, Patrick


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Webster, D. W. E.


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Mathew, R.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, R. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gammans, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Orders of the Day — KENYA (PRISONERS, LOKITAUNG)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: This debate arises out of a letter published in the Observer on Sunday, 8th June. The editor of the paper obviously thought the letter important as he gave a whole column to it on the centre page of the paper and pushed all other letters on to another page. The letter started with the words:
We, political prisoners of Lokitaung, are desirous …
The first question I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is: are the five gentlemen who appended their names to the letter political prisoners? Are they detainees under the Mau Mau regulations or people responsible for the whole organisation of Mau Mau who have been sentenced, have appealed and had their appeal rejected? In other words, can they be defined as political prisoners?
The letter goes on to list a number of complaints. Some of these complaints are probably similar to those which might be listed by any convict in any prison who could get the publicity of world coverage through one of the main British newspapers. They complain that they have no visitors. They complain that they are not visited by prison visitors or by the visiting committee.
Some days after this the Government of Kenya announced in the Legislative Assembly a reply to these complaints, and that was repeated by my right hon. Friend in reply to a question from me in cols. 26 to 28 of HANSARD of 11th June. The Kenya Government pointed out that the prison is about 600 miles from where the prisoners live and that, therefore, they are not likely to get many visitors, and, indeed, that no request for permission for visiting has been made. They say that the prisoners have been visited by justices and by senior officers of the Prisons Department. The next question I want to ask is: how often during the past eighteen months has this prison been visited by senior officers of

the Prisons Department or judicial officers of the Kenya Government?
They complain of a delay with mail, which is answered by the Kenya Government saying that if the prisoners did what they were told and put their address "c/o H.M. Prison Headquarters, Nairobi," where the letters are censored, it would prevent letters from being sent from the writer to the Lokitaung prison, then sent all the way back to Nairobi for censoring and then sent back to the prison. They complain about food and about illness, and the reply was that a balanced ration was available, that there is a resident medical officer in the camp and that there has been no serious illness.
The complaints with which I have dealt are those which, as I said earlier, one would probably get from any convict in any prison if one gave him publicity to publish his grouses. The serious complaints are: first, that they have been beaten. The words were:
We have been beaten in the most brutal manner.
Secondly, they complain that for five months they were kept on a ration of four gallons of water a day, which in that climate would be intolerable, and that in April the ration was cut down to two gallons. They say that some time in April they were told to draw their water out of a well which was entirely insanitary while the six Europeans in the camp continued to use the good well.
The Kenya Government pointed out that there had been rationing because there was a drought, but denied that any person in the camp was treated any differently from any other and said that the ration was about ten gallons a day.
I will read the leading sentence from the concluding paragraphs of the letter which appeared in the Observer on 8th June:
It now appears to us that it is the intention of the Kenya Government to starve us to death, and to this we say we are prepared to fight for our human rights up to the end and we shall never give up our national struggle, for which we would gladly sacrifice even our very lives.
The final paragraph begins:
We consider this the most brutal and inhuman treatment even compared to the Nazi concentration camp.
This letter contains direct accusations against the Kenya Government and against the District Commissioner, who


is referred to in the letter by name—Mr. C. L. Ryland.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend several questions in this respect. Does he consider and does his Department consider that this letter is a genuine letter from Lokitaung Prison? The Observer, in a further article last Sunday, said that the letter it received was neatly written on air letter form, dated 27th April and post-marked Nairobi, 29th May. I understand that some hon. Members have received similar letters. Is it a fact that convicts can send up to 15 letters out of this prison without that being known?
What steps were taken by the newspaper to check with the Colonial Office the accusations in this letter? After all, they were very serious accusations. There was a direct accusation against the Kenya Government and the district officer concerned. I feel that if Dartmoor convicts got together and wrote a letter attacking the Governor of Dartmoor and the Government, any paper, before it published that letter, would take great care to find out whether there was some basis for the accusations. Why should there be a different standard for Kenya?
Finally, on this point, may I ask my right hon. Friend what he can do to clear the name of the district officer, who is now being defamed in the Press. He is a man who is doing a most difficult job in an extremely unpleasant part of the world, as those who know the Northern Province of Kenya will testify. What can he do to clear, indeed, the good name of the Civil Service throughout the Commonwealth? Surely, they must be protected from this form of attack, particularly if it is proved to be based on untruths.
This letter has been received with wide-spread interest in this country, and, of course, much more so in Africa itself. On the Monday after its publication, I received a letter from a constituent. It is very short, and I should like to read it to the House. It says:
Dear Major Wall,
May I draw your attention to the following letter, cutting enclosed, in this morning's Observer.
As you will see, the letter is undated, but already the men have been without water for four days.
It seems that swift and decisive action is necessary.

I quote that to show the impact that a letter printed in a paper like the Observer makes on people as they think that it is true, and, therefore, think that the accusations against the district officer and the Kenya Government are also true—

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that the Government of Kenya instituted an inquiry into this letter before it was published in the Observer?

Mr. Wall: My right hon. Friend will no doubt deal with that. My information is that this letter was published, and given widespread publicity. Most hon. Members received a circular letter from the Movement for Colonial Freedom of which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is the chairman—and, as I see from the letterhead, Canon Collins is the treasurer.

Mr. James Callaghan: Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East) rose—

Mr. Wall: I would like to finish my sentence. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the responsible gentlemen concerned—a Member of this House and a Minister of the established Church—troubled to check these facts with the Colonial Office or with any other Government Department—

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me, so perhaps I may make a comment. May I tell him that I received a copy of this letter nearly a fortnight before it appeared in the columns of the Observer? I then attempted to find out whether it was an authentic letter—I took no step to publish it at all—by communicating with Nairobi. Subsequently to that, I received a letter signed by these persons, and coming from the prison. Only then did I take any action at all, and I took the correct action of referring it to the Minister and asking him to make an investigation. All the circular asks is that we should have an impartial and independent inquiry into these charges.

Mr. Wall: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up that point, because I warned him that I would make it. My question to my right hon. Friend has been answered. The hon. Gentleman says that he took up this matter with the Colonial Office—

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockway rose—

Mr. Wall: Perhaps I could leave that to my right hon. Friend, when he replies.

Mr. Brockway: In case there is any misunderstand ing—

Mr. Wall: That is what I wanted to find out—whether the hon. Member for Eton and Slough did, in fact, take the trouble to check all these matters with the Colonial Office. He has said that he did, and my right hon. Friend will no doubt give his side in due course—

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Wall: I know that my right hon. Friend wants as much time as possible to clear up these points, which are extremely important, and I should like to give him sufficient time.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not his information that the Government of Kenya were warned of these allegations, but, in his answer on 11th June, the Colonial Secretary said:
Because certain allegations regarding conditions in a prison in the Northern Province, which accommodates a few Mau Mau convicts, have been given fairly widespread publicity …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1958; Vol. 589, c. 26.]
The hon. and gallant Gentleman really should read the answers he gets.

Mr. Wall: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting rather muddled about what I said. I asked my right hon. Friend whether the Observer had gone to the Colonial Office and said "We have received this letter. Can you tell us whether these allegations are likely to be true, as we want to publish them?" I also asked whether the hon. Member for Eton and Slough had taken similar action, and he told us he did, so that has already cleared up one point.
It is the job of the Government of Kenya to clear up these matters themselves. If we cannot let our colleagues there look after these things it shows that we place very little trust in the multiracial Government of that country. May I thank my right hon. Friend for coming here to answer this debate personally, because I believe that it has stirred up enormous interest here and in Kenya. It is vitally important to get this matter straight. It is my belief that those who so often take a delight in trying to show that men who are our kith and kin, and perfectly normal people in this country, behave, as the letter says, like Nazis when they find themselves in Africa, have based

their assumption on a document which is full of falsehoods, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will join with the Kenya Government in rebutting these disgraceful allegations.

11.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for raising this subject and giving me an opportunity to answer his questions.
If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and others are indignant because I rise so soon I would remind them that on all these occasions, as a rule, I do my utmost to cut short my remarks to enable the widest number of hon. Members to take part in the debate. But there has been such misrepresentation on this matter, and so many short speeches by way of intervention, that I do not think it is unreasonable that the few minutes that remain should be taken up by me in defending the honour of the Administration of Kenya and of individual officers in particular, and in reminding the great organs of the public Press of the generally accepted rule in this House that hon. Members make themselves responsible for the accuracy of information that they disseminate. If this is true of hon. Members here, I cannot think why it should not also be true of national newspapers.
The letter referred to appeared in the Observer on 8th June. The Chief Secretary of Kenya made a statement in Kenya on 11th June, and I gave a Written Answer to a Question in HANSARD on 11th June. I first heard of the letter from the prison at the end of May, when I was approached by a responsible newspaper, which asked for the comments of my Department, before they published this particular letter. No doubt in doing that they lost a journalistic scoop, but they retained the respect of their readers.
I sent this letter off at once to the Governor of Kenya, but he had, in fact, long before the letter was published, already begun a thorough investigation. The reason for this was as follows: he had had made to him a preliminary report on 16th May about the closing of the main water point in this prison on 25th April. From this preliminary report he realised there was some misapprehension


among the prisoners—the convicts at this prison; they are not detainees—about the precise circumstances of the closing of the main water supply.
So, on 22nd May, the Governor decided to institute an inquiry into the matter by a senior administrative officer. Shortly afterwards, however, a copy of the letter was sent to the Governor by the editor of a vernacular newspaper in Kenya. In view of the allegations in this letter, the Governor extended the inquiry to cover all matters raised in the letter, and the existing administration and other arrangements in the prison.
The investigating officer, who holds first-class magisterial powers, is the Under-Secretary in the Kenya Ministry of Defence. He visited Lokitaung at the end of May and was preparing his report when the letter was published in the Observer in London. In other words, the fact that some prisoners had complaints was brought to the Governor's notice on 16th May, through the general chain of administrative responsibility, by the officers responsible for administering the prison.
The Governor felt that there should be an investigation into the situation by the senior officer of the central Government well versed in the problems of prison management, but not himself responsible for prison administration, and I would stress that point. The letter which reached the Governor from a local paper some days later caused him to direct that that inquiry should cover in detail all the allegations made.
After the publication of the statement by the Chief Secretary of Kenya and of my Answer in the House of Commons, the line of attack on this matter appears to have changed. The letters that come in, inspired no doubt by the original letter in the Observer and one other source of equal irresponsibility in this matter, do not assume that the charges are true, but they take it for granted that an inquiry of this kind is not an adequate inquiry. They are saying, no doubt, that perhaps the charges are not true. But they are saying, "How could you believe the word of the Government of Kenya?"
These sorts of charges are lightly made by people who are constantly urging me in this House to extend the number of

recruits into the Colonial Service and to paint, as I am entitled to paint, and glory in painting, the Colonial Service as a career which fine men ought to be glad to follow. Yet they are prepared to take it for granted that inquiries by men of this kind cannot be relied upon. I indignantly repudiate this line of attack.
An administrative officer, proud of his service and anxious that the truth should always prevail, without which there can be no real pride in the service, is charged with an inquiry. He comes to certain definite conclusions. Had he come to any other conclusions, or had he the least shadow of doubt in his mind that there was a case for a judicial inquiry, he would have been the first to recommend the Governor that such an inquiry should be held. But he showed—and I am convinced that he showed conclusively—that there was not a shred of evidence to justify a judicial inquiry.
My hon. Friend asked me whether these are political prisoners and, as one hon. Member suggested earlier last week at Question Time, whether they are detainees. They are not. They are convicts convicted after the ordinary processes of law, four of them convicted of assisting in the management and being members of an unlawful society, Mau Mau, deeply dyed in that monstrous movement and with responsibility for innocent lives on their hands, and the fifth one convicted of the then capital offence of consorting with persons illegally possessing firearms, but in prison now, because of his age, instead of being executed as he would have been at the time.
There are five main allegations in this spurious document. The first is unspecified brutal beatings; the second is inadequate rations; the third is shortage of water and a discriminatory system of rationing under which Europeans had some privileges denied to Africans; the fourth is shortage of proper medical attention; and the fifth is refusal of visits by their relatives and the absence of official visitors. These allegations were all fully disproved by the inquiry and the results were summarised in the statement made in the Kenya Legislative Council and my own Parliamentary Answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice has asked whether there is any truth in the allegations. The only true facts are as follows. The convicts


are held at Lokitaung, which is some hundreds of miles from Kikuyuland. Turkana is a closed district, and nobody may enter or leave it without a pass. It is true that all letters are censored and that only one letter may be sent or received each month; but that is ordinary prison administration and applies to prisoners of all races, whatever their offence. At Lokitaung this year there was a water shortage, and it affected people of all races.
The other allegations are simply false, or are so exaggerated as to amount to complete misrepresentation. For example, prisoners said that they had suffered for five years from brutal beatings. The facts are that, on investigation, one said that he had been struck once by a prison warder, but he gave no specific details, and it might be added that there is a regular medical inspection at least once a week. This revealed so signs of ill-treatment over the period of imprisonment.
The prisoners also said that their rations were inadequate, and that they were kept without vegetables or fruit and were, therefore, prone to deficiency diseases and losing their eyesight. What are the facts? They have a medically controlled and balanced diet, including meat and elements specially designed to guard against deficiency. They eat vegetables grown in the prison area, and their general health is certified as good. One convict had to have surgical treatment for an eye disease, and one other may require spectacles. He will get them if the medical officer says that they are required.
What is the sum total of their ill-health? They pictured themselves as all being deprived of water, and restricted first to four gallons a day and then two gallons, and then none at all. For five months they had been unable to bathe. They said that they were directed to a polluted well, all clean water being reserved only for Europeans.
What are the facts? Up to this year there was no shortage of water, but this year there was a drought. Like all other persons of whatever race or colour at this remote station, the convicts were rationed to about 10 gallons each a day, the amount which, in fact, they had used before rationing was imposed. When the rains started, the officer in charge closed the normal water point for six days for maintenance and repair.
During this period, everyone, European or African, who required water to supplement rain water was directed to draw it from a well which had been polluted, but which had recently been cleaned, repaired, and certainly was fit for human use. When the usual well was reopened, the rationing ended and the convicts, like everyone else, could draw the water they required. The prison has been regularly inspected; it has a medical officer residing within a hundred yards, and he visits the prisoners once a week. The convicts are in good health, and their allegations are unfounded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice also asked how many times senior officers visited the prison. The answer is that during the last eighteen months visiting justices have made seven visits to Lokitaung. In the same period, the prison has been visited by senior prison officers on nine occasions, in addition to regular monthly visits by the Prison Officer in charge of Lodwar Detention Camp, who visited it regularly between January, 1957, and April, 1958, and other senior officers have visited Lokitaung on four occasions. Dr. Anderson, of the Africa Inland Mission, and Bishop Obadiah Kariuki, accompanied by the Prisons Department chaplain, visited Lokitaung Prison early in April and also in July, 1957. Furthermore, the visiting committee which went to Lodwar Detention Camp took the opportunity to visit Lokitaung Prison on two occasions in 1957.
My hon. Friend asked me whether any attempt had been made by the Observer to check the accuracy of these charges before they were made. The answer, as far as my Department is concerned, is that no attempt of any kind was made to check up on the accuracy of these charges, and the facts were given wide publicity. A body which calls itself the Movement for Colonial Freedom also circularised all Members of Parliament and made no inquiries in its capacity as that body from my Department. These untrue stories—

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. That letter was sent out by the organisation of which I am chairman. I sent the document to the right hon. Gentleman and asked him to make an investigation.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These untrue stories have been spread throughout the country and had been taken as true by many people who are rightly concerned for the good name of our administrators.
I deeply resent the irresponsible way in which these false charges have been disseminated. I hope that the true facts will receive full publicity so as to redress the injustice done by these utterly unwarranted allegations against Mr. Ryland, the district officer of Lokitaung, and the Government of Kenya.
Drawing from this encouragement, if encouragement it can be called, many people are now saying of the League of Colonial Freedom and of similar bodies that there should now be a general inquiry into all Kenya prisons. They are relying on the short memories of some of our fellow citizens. An inquiry was held when there had been rather similar charges late in 1955 into the prisons and camps.
The inquiry was carried out by Mr. Heaton, a member of my Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders, who found that the morale and discipline of the prison staff were good and the inmates well fed, well clothed and well housed. The report, which was a full vindication of the Kenya prison service, was published as a White Paper by the Kenya Government and a copy was placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
It is significant that the charges dry up as soon as the truth is known, except in the minds of those people who are constantly pleading the need to do justice

to the Africans, totally ignoring the need to do justice to people of our own race under very great strain.
A further inquiry was made in 1957 by a delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was given full opportunity to see every prison and camp in Kenya in which Mau Mau were held, wherever it wished to go. Although the delegation did not go to Lokitaung, it inspected no fewer than 52 prisons and camps, including a comparable establishment at Lodwar, in the same district of the Northern Province. The delegation recorded in a published statement its considered opinion that all had been done, and was being done, to respect the accepted international principles concerning the custody of detainees and convicts. In view of this, I see no reason whatever, especially since these allegations are untrue, to hold another general inquiry into conditions in Kenya prisons.
I would like the conclusion from what I have said tonight and what, I feel, is the general sense of the country to go from here to our fellow citizens and people of all races in Kenya who are attempting to build up a non-racial society in East Africa; that we trust the Administration of Kenya, that when mistakes have been made they have been the first to see that they are thoroughly ventilated and that grievances are removed, and that we refuse to regard irresponsibility as truth.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.